Funnily enough, one simple fix would be to change the lesson her brother gives her to one fitting Tolkien’s idea of virtue. He tells her that evil corrupts and she, perhaps as a cop out, could argue that you need to touch the darkness to see the light. Then every time she fails at redemption, you can literally play that scene again and show her going against her brother’s lesson, because she’s not there yet. The audience understands she’s still in her downwards spiral. The problem I think is the writers aren’t really sure when to challenge Galadriel on her darkness and when to just glorify it as some element that makes her "badass" and "cool" or deep or some silly notion like that.
Is there a problem with the writers or your perception of the writers? In my mind, they have shown very clearly that she is on a downward spiral and that she has failed to redeem herself. They have also shown sides of her where subtle changes are happening. I have said that she needed to give up that dagger for a real change to happen and she did but it was never going to be overnight and which is why on very very few occasions they gave us a glimpse of what she used to be. I get how everyone hated how they did it and didn't like her character. But your version is a bit spoon-feeding for me. I feel like you almost have to whisper when you say that you have enjoyed the show which I have. It is not perfect at all but I actually have really enjoyed it as it's been a talking point with friends. But saying that every Tolkien adaptation I have had a slight issue with.
@@mongothecouldntcareless1353 Not to be rude in general before you insult someone you have to read what they wrote. I never said I find Galadriel cool or that I like her you assumed that. I won’t retype my points again as I already stated them. This seems to be very triggering for you when someone states they liked the show although they have also pointed that it wasn’t perfect. Because in life everyone must like what you like and hate what you hate. And of course if someone has friends that did they are liars. Not to be rude again but the rest of post just reads like your slightly unhinged. Oh and as grown adult of nearly 50 Twitter is not a place I hang out on for too long and when I state friends it’s of the flesh and blood variety.
@@peteg475 True, and so could be Galadriel - until she realizes how moronic her actions are. Of course, we all know this is not how the writers see this, but one could dream
They could’ve easily done this show with another character driven by vengeance or maybe an oath, like Fëanor and his sons. There are tons of characters they could’ve spun a revenge tale about, there’s tons of suicidal missions with revenge as the driving factor but they choose to use one of the most altruistic and non-vengeful characters Tolkien has written.
@@emberslookingglass3303 yeah n maybe start a discussion of whether he had any future plans to forge a ring of power You know, those kinds of conversation
I loved when he called Galadriel out on the fact that he absolutely never claimed to be a lost king and told her no a million times. Like, I think “evil can be deceiving” is a fair message, but it’s not exactly what happened here. Evil never deceived her, she deceived herself. Sauron was just chillin” 🤷🏻♀️
In Tolkien's actual work, Finrod (Galadriel's brother) was also a virtuous character. He died, not hunting Sauron as the show claims, but saving a human warrior named Beren who was was bound to by an oath. His virtue allowed him to be resurrected and given a new body in Valinor shortly after his death, instead of of his soul spending centuries in the Halls of Mandos, which was basically Tolkien's version of purgatory.
... Wait, they made Finrod bad!? In Silimarilion he is like the sweetest, kindest elf, a cinnamon roll I would even say! I think it is even worse that what they did to Galadriel.
@@a.w.4708 Finrod was the Elf who first came in contact with Men in Eastern Beleriand and he did so by sneaking into their camp one night and playing angelic music with his harp. That's how he became friends with them.
Unlike the case with Galadriel, there is no question that the RoP violates the lore with Finrod. Of course, to actually adhere to the lore, they would have to explain that Finrod was killed in Sauron's dungeon because because he gave up his kingdom to adhere to pay a debt owed to Beren's grandfather, and went with Beren on the hopeless task of wresting a Silmaril from the Crown of Morgoth; and that at the last, he died saving Beren's life within that dungeon. However, to be true to that lore, they would have needed to devote a whole episode (probably a whole season) to Finrod, and would have far exceed the rights they had purchased (which were to the Appendices of the LoTR, not to the Silmarilion). I am probably not alone in that I would far rather have seen a (properly done) version of the Tale of Beren and Luthien than a tale of the Rings of Power (which is close to the most unsuitable tale for adaption to visual media of any among Tolkien's stories).
Why would Galadriel seek vengeance for her brother if elves don't die but go to the halls of Mandos? So she would've met her brother if she kept on sailing.
Galadriel was already ancient during the Second Age: She was taught by the Valar themselves, she was already wise and highly intelligent before Sauron began to make his move.
That is what you think Tolkien wrote - but in fact he wrote the opposite. Tolkien's young Galadriel was described by him as being of amazon disposition. She left Valinar for Middle Earth to find a realm of her own to rule. At the end of the first age, she refused the Valar in order to stay in Middle Earth with that same motivation. In other words, Tolkien described the young Galadriel as being a supremely athletic warrior lady who sought personal power for its own sake. That is not quite the same as Amazon's Galadriel, but nowhere near the character assassination we find in Peter Jackson's Arwen initially deciding to leave Middle Earth, or in Aragorn actually flirting with Eowyn, or in Faramir deciding to take the Ring by force from the Ring bearer, to give it to his father.
@@tom_curtis and in the second age she is much closer in age to TA Galadriel than she is to when she was described as rash man-maiden. She’s married, has been a mother for over 1000 years, has ruled, and most importantly, spent hundreds of years studying under Melian, wisest queen of all in Doriath. She was never said to have led armies (absolutely NOT the commander of the armies of the north), but her husband, who they wrote out, did. She never went to Numenor, never interacted with Miriel, and most importantly she was explicitly said to NOT have fallen for Sauron’s deception. Amazon straight up had her falling in love with him, there’s no way that’s not an egregious character assassination
@@tom_curtis Yea that's real cute that you think I worship the Peter Jackson trilogy. I hated Faramir's character assassination in that and I actually prefer the Scouring of the Shire to how Saruman dies in the movies. Also you seem to be confusing Second Age Galadriel with First Age Galadriel. Huge time skip between those two. Let alone Amazon wants to make people think that the Forging of the Rings and the Fall of Numenor happen at the same time since characters like Ar-Pharazon, Elendil and Isildur are alive some 1600 years before their time. No-one even truly knew of Sauron's presence in Middle-Earth since he hid away to build his power base in secrecy after Morgoth's defeat and banishment to the Void. Let alone Gino (Galadriel In Name Only) once again shows people think a strong character who is female is just a woman with toxic masculine traits. Galadriel was strong not because of unrestrained emotions, cruelty and physical strength; but her wisdom, intelligence and magical ability. I mean this is someone with the fortitude to resist the One Ring's lull despite it potentially being able to make her as big a threat as Sauron, possibly more, and she tore down Dol Guldur alone with her magic. Sure, she had help from Thranduil of the Woodland Realm and his forces in fighting the forces of Sauron, but camaraderie and alliances are not a bad thing.
@@baeromir My thoughts exactly: Galadriel, Gil-Galad and Cirdan were suspicious of Annatar. Not rabidly hostile like Amazon is depicting Galadriel (hence I call her Gino). They weren't wary enough to realize who Annatar was (given Sauron is a master of deception AND a Maiar, i.e. basically an angel), but wise enough not to trust him.
The fact that as we’re moving forward, the heroes are becoming more villainous while the villains are becoming increasingly heroic and sympathetic, is rather telling about the mindset of those who are writing these things. It’s not just here, I’m seeing it with other stories as well.
It's an incredibly common trope, I second that, even disturbingly so. Oftentimes the undertones are arrogant and about justifications for characters that have little redeeming value, and seldom actually contain a lesson of value for it. Judging by how corporates respond to legitimate criticism with insults and outrageous accusations, I don't think it's farfetched to guess that they view these characters as extensions of a self-righteous and aristocratic world view.
Agree completely, a window into the soul-less or the brainless, or both. They are tyrannical fools devoid of any understanding of virtue or wisdom. There was a reason they only got one credited gig in 10 years.
I haven't watched this and don't plan to, but what I absolutely CANNOT tolerate is Galadriel and everyone else surviving a pyroclastic flow without even asspulling magic. They are ALL DEAD.
Not big enough to be noticed by the Eye for bot attacks yet! But I agree. It was and still is confusing. This show has a MASSIVE suspension of disbelief problem, the eruption being the worst. Very memeable though!
@@emberslookingglass3303 The eruption WAS beautifully done and I was honestly waiting for Galadriel to pull magic out her butt in the next episode. I would have rolled my eyes and said "of course she's using what should have been her primary power NOW" but accepted it. Then she just stood up and walked it off and I stared in pure disbelief. I can only blame the writers for having NO IDEA what a pyroclastic flow even is.
Well said. I think there's a lot to be said about the durability of suspension of disbelief in fantasy. There is a lot that can be reasonably be suspended with little persuasion. If they really needed this scene shot like this, magic seemed like an easy set up with just a little early season investment.
@@WildZephyr They really decided to give the second strongest magic-wielding elf pretty much 0 magic in a show about her? It's so strange. Even LOTR which keeps the magic fairly light outside of the Wizards show her nearly their equal, and yet so much more rational and wise. I get that Galadriel is younger than in LOTR, 5000 in RoP I think, but why does she come across as an aggressive 18 year old?
Adar's interrogation was the only scene that made me feel sympathetic with a character, and that character was definitely not Galadriel (it also helps that Joseph Mawle is the only cast member in this show who CAN act).
I love characters like Adar so much, I love when stories try to give personality to the hordes of henchmen that the protagonists kill by the thousands, the story of the Uruk embody that, why not make a show about them? It would be like a modern greek tragedy cause we know their quest for a place in this world is futile.
It's amazing how they managed to make the protagonist antagonistic in that scene, which many shows and movies have done where shortly after there's self-reflection, but then they give Galadriel absolutely no awareness to how absurdly evil she was in that scene.
@Sillhouette S. Why would feel more sorry for the man who just wants his kind to live while the platinum blonde white Aryan tells him his race was a mistake?
what's strange to me is they bet her entire character on aggression, yet she's only in one real fight in the entire series, and it happens in episode 1. and her not telling anyone about Sauron was the dumbest moment in the whole show. and this show had a lot of dumb moments
@@scambammer6102 And the Harfoots leaving people behind to die for no reason, Nazguls appearing before the Rings are even forged, the villagers abandoning a fort to fight in an open village...
Patently evil no less! Certainly part and parcel of when shills in a corporate machine are afforded power, but the irony of the subject matter and how little they understand "good" is a perfect storm of form following function.
It's truly tragic. I originally had a fully encompassing review, but there was little point becaus characters not named Galadriel or Halbrand are filler or plot device.
These were some GREAT insights. I've seen some moral and philosophical analyses of RoP, but this one made those arguments in terms of the show's writing, which really laid bare the antithetical virtues they're pushing. Excellent work!
The truth is that we, as a contemporary culture, do not know how to create a good hero. We’ve diluted the heroic archetype with so much gray. For us, creating a hero that we can be collectively inspired by is an awkward and arduous process that results in emo, confused, and almost depressed character; a representation of our collective modern psyche.
@@mschell8022 there are valid places where a complex, gray character like Adar works very well. Shows like the Expanse, to use an Amazon original, are full of great complex characters with real human flaws. But to impose that upon an already established character, whose original persona embodies a particular feminine archetype like Galadriel, is weird and makes for a confusing character. That’s a crime that our generation continues to do. It’s like painting over the Mona Lisa to make her look more contemporary. It’s wrong.
@@joetheperformer Exactly! It's not that we don't want to see conflicted or flawed characters. If you are going to change an existing character into one they do not resemble, you need to have a very well thought out and written reason for doing so. RoP utterly fails Galadriel in this respect.
Just remember it's #SaurGuyladriel is not a woman, a woman is human, SaurGuyladriel is an elf, an elf female, thus She must be declared She-Elf or Strong Female, get it right people....🧝♀️🤯
@@joetheperformer you are most honoring and generous good sir. You would love the KO word smithing we do against the showrunners in the entire "Exsurge Tolkien" piece. #SaurGuyLadriel" is only the beginning, lol, peace be to you.
I love how you focused on how the dagger actually runs counter to what the showrunners said about it recently; they claimed that her relinquishing the dagger showed her losing her childhood innocence (!), of all things.
I am hearing about this from a few people. Hahaha...they can say it but they've really written the opposite here. I really must note that this show seems written by people with clashing ideas. Sometimes Galadriel is clearly meant to be seen as dark, sometimes she's decided to be the paragon of the show. Very divided show against itself
@@emberslookingglass3303 What I suspect is that every occasion of Adar and Halbrand calling out Galadriel are written by the one member of the writing staff who understood what a terrible person Galadriel has been written as, and is calling out not just the character but the other writers on it. And is probably depressed because his co-workers are such shitty writers they never even noticed :p
I recall a dagger being a gift to Aladdin from his father, intended to be given to him when he was old enough, thus the basic weapon symbolized early adulthood.
It's amazing that while this show failed to make a likable flaw character, an other show about dragons had a lot of captivating, flawed characters. It's all about talent in writing.
Not just talent, self-awareness and willingness to consider criticism from others and self-improvement. Even an inexperienced writer could've come up with a better story if they, every now and again, stopped to think about how their story worked, what they were working with, and what more experienced individuals could have to say, but the writers were Amazon and Hollywood executives, so they decided that simply wasn't necessary.
I think it's also an issue of source material choice. GRRM goes for realism, his characters are always greyish, with redeeming qualities and flaws, while Tolkien was writing glorified legends about ideals, with elves being almost force of nature.
Excellent breakdown, essentially the show took the principles that make up Tolkienian ethics and corrupted them. If you remove Tolkien from lotr you are only left with a parody, a shadow, of the grandeur that we all love.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="30">0:30</a> that sort of gratuitous blade spinning always reminds me of the bit in Galaxy Quest: "Does the rolling help?" "Yes. Yes, it does."
Galadriel was completely out of character when considering Tolkien's lore and her virtue and wisdom in the books. I don't why they chose to change her so much. It's clear they wanted a "strong female character" but forgot that they can create that without making a flawed stereotype "strong" female character. You can create "strength" without a character being brutish and constantly rude. She was the weakest link in the series, because yep... she learns nothing, there is no evolution at all; only flashes of a possible arc, but it fails.
The writers seem to believe that "strong" means "vengeful warrior" energy. And in the world of movies, sadly that's what we see entirely too often. Probably because those traits are the express train to battles and conflict which is ultimately what TV writers are interested in. They aren't interested in developing characters and relationships for the sake of storytelling. For them characters are simply vehicles to get them to the epic battle scene. Yet for Tolkien, it was the opposite. The conflict and the battles were only a vehicle for character development. To show their strength and love in the face of overwhelming adversity. Frodo's battle is mainly an internal one - pushing on and remaining humble and compassionate against the power of the ring.
But this is actually true of every mythology of evil we have out there: dark lords are in fact moral compass who provide the mirror to what is going on.
First off... great vid. Subbed. Secondly I'd like to point out that while you're correct in saying that I traditional story telling, galadriel giving up the symbol of her vengeance quest would be representative of her letting go of her hatred and rejecting the darkness, the show writers are on record in an interview saying that letting go of the dagger in order to make the rings is symbolic of her letting go of her innocence and her last link to the goodness of her brother and valinor. So I'm hope you're ready for an even more evil and bloodthirsty guyladriel next season. Apparently the one we saw in S1 was her being good and virtuous. Lol
Thank you, and insightful information. I cannot begin to describe the challenges of finding the ideas in the writing, but that is an angle that is unfathomable lol. The thing that pulls her away from Valinor and her rage in a weapon...is her innocence? 🤣 big if true!
@@emberslookingglass3303 Yep. There were already well written strong women in Tolkien's original works. One of them was Galadriel. They fucked it up by putting in their own view of what a strong woman is, which is apparently to just copy the tropes of what make men strong, and just put them on a woman. It's lazy.
AmazonGaladriel isn't Tolkien's Galadriel. Tolkien's characters is completely different from Amazon's caricature. Amazon just gave their version the kind of traits THEY admire, which probably says something about them. They just straight up shredded the Middle-Earth lore and Tolkien's original story to make room for some weird 'AmazonGaladriel x Sauron romance' that they were dead set on making, despite not being canon or making any real sense.
Tolkien: “(Galadriel) was then of amazon disposition” so end of argument there. There are actually many points of connection with the lore, what everyone needs to remember is that not even Tolkien set just one single version in stone. Having different visions involved according to how others relate to characters is valuable. Some things could only be understood as we move forward in our civilization. But I agree with the vid that internally the show is conflicted. Now, I actually had a dream they were making it a romance and I reacted against it in the dream, lol. “They can’t! She’s more like his daughter really” - but upon watching the show I didn’t get any romantic vibes like I had in the dream. Weird… wonder where that came from. Flirtation yes, but it’s from an older archetype (Divided Goddess and Gay “low man” who believe in each other). But then Halbrand looks and feels too surfy-straight to uphold that vibe, doesn’t really fit the dark-armour guy (whose plan is to dominate *Kings*).
@@AdinaIspas Tolkien's Galadriel was a full blown sorceress - trained by Melian herself - , wife and mother in the Second Age who was also literally older than Middle-Earth's sun (her teen days were over WAY back in Valinor) . She was also known for being extremely wise and perceptive. 'Amazon' can also be another alternative for the term 'athletic'. Amazon simply used that term as an excuse to turn her into a generic warrior type with all the sort of traits THEY admire. (aggressive, arrogant, manipulative, etc) Tolkien's Galadriel DIDN'T need a sword. You're talking about someone who could single-handedly destroy a fortress on her own. . Essentially, Amazon downgraded Galadriel. (they probably don't even realise it because it's clear they don't understand what made Tolkien's work so special). They actually made her dumber and they got rid of the husband and kid because even the Amazon showrunners knew it would have looked awkward having them around when she was making eyes at Halbrand. They also managed to make her a psychopath prone to making some incredibly dumb mistakes. This is someone who's been around for thousands of years. It's true that Tolkien was constantly developing his creation, but it's also fairly clear to readers of his work, the kind of themes and characters he was aiming for. But the Amazon showrunners decided to go for an absolute massacre of the canon. They can twist themselves inside out trying to 'explain' why they did what did, but when they got rid of Tom Shippey, the Tolkien scholar who was supposed to make sure Amazon adhered to Tolkien's lore, and swapped him out with an identity politics activist - shortly after Christopher Tolkien's death -, just about EVERYONE knew Amazon had no interest in and no intention of making a faithful adaptation. And the result speaks for itself.
@@AdinaIspas no that isn't an "end of argument". The comment is vague and supported by NO detail. At no point in Tolkien does Galadriel ever wield a weapon.
Just want to say that I appreciate how you break down the problems of RoP without the rage and hate. I’ve watched a lot of videos about this topic, but I really like yours because you present it plain and simple without any strong outburst of emotion. I don’t blame anyone for hating on this show because there really is a lot to be angry about and all of the outrage is understandable. But I prefer arguments to be presented in a more calm logical manner instead of a fiery emotional one. Nicely done. 👍🏽
Even the older Elves and her only friend knew how pathetic Galadriel and her company of weak surrendor monkeys were and packed all of them off to an early death in that reality to get rid of them on a boat to Elvin heaven
Great video man, totally agree with your breakdown, I'd recommend it to anyone like me who really sensed everything you're describing in Amazon's Galadriel depiction, but couldn't put it into words quite like you so eloquently did. Glad i found this 👍
I appreciate this greatly. My goal was to give a voice to something that many sensed had gone completely wrong. To hear this makes me know the hours were worth it.
The most glaring problem with Galadriel, is of course the fact that she isn't Galadriel. The original Galadriel is hardly an action figure, but rather a reference. What the show runners wanted is Glorfindel - but the poor character has already been cut off from at least two Tolkien adaptations. I wonder what was so wrong with him. My mind just refuses to register RoP, no matter how many times I watched it, as a Tolkien-inspired work. More like a nightmare from Galadriel's head.
Thank you for this eloquent presentation of my exact feelings for this character. Even though I'm months late, I would like to add one thing in the criticism of this character arc: They have yet to show us the clear Sauron motives. He has claimed that, so far he wants none of the things Galadriel is pushing him to do. It may very well be all lies of course, cause... Sauron. However, given the current villain trends, he could have been in a redemption path, which Galadriel obstinately denied him. So how exactly are we going to redeem and sympathise with Galadriel, who's solely responsible for Sauron's turn to evil and everything he's going to do from here on out?
Thank you, and perhaps the topic of an upcoming video! Massive corporations care nothing for art or quality, only for performances observable by shareholders.
It feels like the writers were gone full "LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LA LA LA!" to all critisism towards the writing. This is not mediocre writing. It's complete garbage and has nothing to do with Tolkien or Jackson's Lord of the rings. If Amazon will continue this shit show it won't be nothing more than a cheap fan fiction. No amount of money will fix that.
As someone that has dabbled in dark and conventional philosophy I can say, with no lack of certainty, that Adar is the most good and virtuous character in the show, as he is the only individual that acts truly selflessly in the name of the greater good for others, as he perceives it. He fights not for personal glory or other symbolic ideas but in the name of the Uruk people and to ensure they have safety and freedom in the face of hostile foreign persecution by, what seems to be genocidal, elves. In this way the orcs now represent real peoples that have had a history of persecution do to military action, such as post WW1 Germany, or any group that has been exterminated due to them being an other, such as WW2 Jews and Gypsy (Roma), or what could be even closer in this case to the mass murder and other crimes done to Native America peoples. This personally makes the depictions of Orcs and Uruk in this show even worse. The only other characters that can be said to be good and virtuous are Gil-galad and Halbrand as both are striving to attain peace after a long and terrible war in which they both took part and are now looking to move past so that they can have "normal" lives as shown through Gil-galad's attempts to demilitarize and Halbrand's attempt to retire and become a normal smith as was what he was before the war. So humbly that he, a Maiar, is willing to make mundane works with mundane tools simple so that he may have a peaceful life. Even sparing the live of several Numanoreans when they get into a street fight, when he could have easily killed them and leave none the wiser. To this end Galadriel is among the most malevolent, with several cruel and half insane actions. Such as abandoning one of her men to die from the cold, resulting in a mutiny, openly denying peace as shown with her jumping the boat. An act that is not only considered evil by all philosophies but also as blasphemes do to it also involving denying heaven. What many philosophies consider her most evil act of forcing war on those that don't want it and have made steps to escape it, in this case by forcing Halbrand to return to a war he wanted no part in, threaten a surrendered captive with torture and genocide. Finally but worst of all, depending on the relevant philosophy, treachery as when she tried to kill Halbrand after he admitted that he was once Sauron. They were both allies and he admitted this unarmed and as an act of good faith. Even after she failed to kill him he spared her life, an act of kindness and virtue, I, myself would not have shown. Perhaps most damning of all was that Halbrand aided in the forging of the rings as a honest and meaningful action to aid an allied faction and fellow smith in the completion of an important and significant work, meaning that this action was good and virtuous making Galadriel's actions against him even worse, as he had through that action, done more for the elven people than Galadrial herself.
Whenever I critique this show I find myself not at a lack of words, but that "there's a tempest in me", which would spew forth a verbal diarrhea of great proportion. It's just how bad it is. Rings of Power checked all the wokist perspectives, cast was full of diversity hires, feminism is ultra strong in this show and there's American political talking points in the show too (they took ur JOBS!) .. When people are going to watch this 20 years from now they'll cringe hard, because it's not made in the spirit of Tolkien, but rather the current political 'ZEITGEIST' in America. It's noticeable and that's why it sucks.
I'm an American who leans left. I'm "supposed" to be the audience that will clap hard for this type of show... and I did not. Instead, I found the messages they were trying to pull to be thoughtless inserts, like the feeling of seeing an ad or a product placement. And what's honestly exceptionally weird to me is, Tolkien's works can definitely represent the messages this show tried to spew. His original works have strong characters (including women like Galadriel); social discord that were mended through acceptance and love that could be used as an allegory for anti-racism; there's a strong message against authoritarianism, violence, and domination; I could go on. The books fit quite well in modern society on their own. So as far as I'm concerned, if the showrunners' purpose was to make it so the show carried a stirring message about social issues today, they utterly failed and could have done it so much better had they just presented Tolkien's works as they were.
@@jhmi7877 The show is not faithful to the established lore and the world around it. Even if you were a radical communist you could still create a Tolkienesque work of fiction, if you merely tried not to bring your own political and modern biases into the show. It's just like the movie "Bros" which has been in the headlines of the entertainment industry and has bombed completely. It's not even gonna make enough money to cover its budget. That movie is probably more of a window to what the writers minds than an actual work of entertainment. Honestly these people need to stop modernizing old content for a modern audience. Just stop.
Take feminism out of this mess! I’m feminist as f*ck and I really dislike Galadriel in RoP. The character is a very stereotyped version of a strong woman written by the lens of sexism: brute and aggressive. Feminism acknowledges that women are complex and diverse and that there are many ways to be strong. Feminism doesn’t see feminine as a weakness: sexism does.
Your breakdown has been one of the best I've heard of so far, which means it's the fifth or sixth. The writers themselves definitely didn't know what they were doing; not only in that they were poor at their jobs as writers for a streaming television show, but that they had no idea what sort of characters they were creating. If nothing else, they absolutely didn't fully account for or consciously measure how the characters would 'animate' and manifest their personas on screen, based on how they were written. Not being able to understand Tolkien's ethics and moral underpinnings, and not being able to understand the meta-ethics of virtue as a greater 'spiritual' force, stringing cause and effect together, through all characters in a story, lead to sympathizing with compelling three-dimensional villains, and discarding the main hero protagonist. This show has presented another great example of modern corporate writers blatantly and without reservation, attempting to spell out who you should root for and empathize with; though, again, because they didn't know what they were doing, the ethical core of the heroes and the villains were reversed.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="470">7:50</a> "She has no redemption, no transformation, and nothing learned". Of course not! She is not human, she is an ancient, and by now unchanging elf from olden times. It is never desirable for a mature elf to change, undergo catharses, or to respond to situations emotionally. She would not be a good elf if she did that. Neither would Arondir. Thankfully he is as stoic, immutable, and noble as a stout brick wall. This is good: that neither Arondir nor Galadriel run around acting almost human. Jackson never had Legolas do that. Neither did Tolkien. Tolkien: when Elves start using their emotions to make decisions, then they were usually making a big mistake. And if an Elf starts to love a human, then they cannot really stay an elf any longer.
Vengeance is not a virtue. It is a plot point among those with ambiguous morality. Those on a path of vengeance may do horrible things. In this case her dialogue is horrible and her actions deus ex machina. Clark should have had the wisdom to turn down this role. She didn’t.
Rules of nature at the end was unexpected, but throughly appreciated. Excellent video, presentation, and overall quality. My critique would only be the scenes of dialog you were highlighting, were extremely quiet compared to the narration. Up that a bit and you're gold! Or, uh.. mithril.
This is so insightful. I just started reading into Tolkien's work, but I have one question, when does Tolkien details Halbrand's journey in the Silmarillion? He mentions Annatar but I might have missed it while reading. Thank you!
I appreciate the kind word! Halbrand is entirely an Amazon creation. The concept of Halbrand certainly originated from Annatar, but it's uncertain how much they will alter that from here. In short, Annatar is what you are looking for.
This is thoughtful and interesting. What I found challenging when interpreting the this show is the creator’s intentions versus what they showed. Galadriel comes across a righteous moral grandstander, telling Halbrand he abandoned his crew to death but dis he? He told them to be quiet and they ignored and chose to save himself. What could he against a giant sea monster any ways? Galadriel can single-handedly kill a snow-troll and even she fled the scene. As far as we know, Halbrand is a refuge from a derelict former kingdom whose loved ones were recently killed. Through this lens, his questionable behavior might be seen as desperate and trauma-induced rather than lack of virtue. We’re just not given enough reason for Galadriel to be the way she is. Sure, her brother died but so did the loved ones of many other Elves and plenty who had it worse than a princess. Her evenge is just about feeling good which is such a tragic but kinda repulsive motivation. Why did the writers have to start Galadriel’s arc at the bottom of the Mariana Trench?
I totally second your insightful statement: "Galadriel's brother might be the most insidious character in Rings of Power because he's not simply an inserted character that guides Galadriel down a path of ruin, but the voice of a corporation attempting to seize control of a beloved tale." It's truth in this travesty of everything that LOTR stands for, and it's truth in the gaslighting of the fans accused of racism and fascism to try to control the message. Bravo -- well said!
I have not watched RoP. Ever since the first "superfans" trailer, it seemed like it was going to be a nightmare. But I have watched many of these reviews, and the only thing that I find even slightly compelling is Adar. A show that humanizes the orcs and makes them somewhat sympathetic could have been awesome. It's unfortunate the protagonist is nowhere near as compelling.
I was in the same boat, but a friend dragged me into it and I figured I could add my 2 cents to the online discussion. It's as bad as the "superfans" made it seem. It's boring, inconsistent, and overall felt like there was zero vision for the show. And I agree, Adar is likely the most compelling character on the show. It's like he mourns for his lost "light" and Galadriel's brutality against him makes him sympathetic while providing an outlet for the obvious question of Galadriel's morality.
Alas The power of the Rings is fading with each passing episode, as we all hear Treebeard's cry fused into the corporate machine theyocracy and their subordinates, "a wizard should know better." If you have lost heart or grown frustrated, join us for EXSURGE TOLKIEN as we continue to defend the counter perspective to this heresy. It is overwhelming that the showrunner's rather than desiring to respect Tolkien's Tales, yearned to be the 'lord and god' of their own "private sub-creation." Now is the hour for all phans to realize that this show does not glitter and is not gold, and return to the Valar, to the truth. "Auta i lóme!" and" Aurë entuluva."
@@emberslookingglass3303 I think the writers were so focused on couple of the basic pillars they set for the show like the "who's Sauron" mystery, Galadriel being a strong independent female but not quite herself yet and Hobbits existing to draw movie fans, that the rest of the show fell apart around these pillars instead of being held up... Such talentless wasteful effort
The problem is that LOTR's theme is good versus evil. The more you humanize the orcs, the more inhuman the protagonists become. Galadriel practically becomes a war criminal here. And in Star Wars you have Finn who starts killing his former colleagues like a psychopath. Sympathetic villains can work, but then the story has to fit.
i will admit, there is a certain amount of cutting edge irony in this story. they were able to make Sauron, the supposed antagonist, much more likeable with a more interesting story arc than Galadriel, the supposed protagonist. this type of writing can be classified as revolutionary, even if it is unintentional...
Ya know they're shit if they managed to make Finrod Felagund, the most beloved, virtuous and loyal elf to ever exist in all of middle earth a pilar of cynicle evil.....
I don't know if it's trying to deconstruct the values from Tolkien. It didn't resolve any of these moral questions. So either it intends to resolve them eventually or it is simply incoherent. Galadriel's "arc" is incoherent and because it is, the overall values in the show are incoherent. There are characters steadfast that they are on the side of righteousness but they don't have the proof to back that up. I would assume for instance that Durin and Desa are making a mistake about mining for the mithril and dwarf king is right. but Durin and Desa think they are right, that they have found a win-win in which pursuing their ambitions also happens to be the humanitarian path that will save the elves. I would think that Galadriel is going to discover eventually that she has been conned by her own darkness, that righteousness isn't raging at Sauron and thrusting her dagger at him to show she's on the opposite side of him and it's therefore the good side; that she will realize she gave him what he wanted by forging those rings and trapped the world in a lasting darkness because of it. But again, it ends with her seeming to believe she's still fighting the good fight. The queen of numenor doesn't know if helping galadriel is right or if not helping her is right. She cares more seemingly about saving numenor than coming to her own moral conclusions, relying on a tree to tell her right from wrong. Later she seems to rediscover her faith, but her faith may well be as blind as she has become. If the show isn't incoherent it could be saying something deep about self-righteousness and only the villains can see it (re: galadriel) bc they don't delude themselves that they are righteous people even if they see righteousness in their causes. There could be something deep in all this moral ambiguity, reflecting the moral uncertainty of the 2nd age, an age in which Sauron succeeds in deceiving so many that they are on the right path. Or ... It could just be incoherent with no through line (and I fear that's what it is) The other matter that makes this annoying is how stupid the characters are. Galadriel assumes Halbrand is king of the Southlands because he has a pouch with a sigil. She doesn't bother challenging Adar with questions such as if the orcs are just like everyone else why are they engaging in horrible evil to get what they want? She doesn't ask, why was Sauron so enthusiastic about forging these rings, and leading all the ideas, what's in it for him? She doesn't ask what do you mean when you say you want to heal middle earth? Elf king doesn't ask why black sickness is spreading through the elven world, if it's because of the elves mb being corrupted themselves, and he doesn't ask why this mithril is the apparent magical cure or what that means. No one gets to the bottom of anything. They all make stupid assumptions and then later fall prey to their own stupidity.
Fair and correct points. I'm big on analyzing the structure, and just the way the arc is written I'm not confident we are getting these resolutions. Sometimes the show wants to highlight Galadriel is dark, but it doesn't really go anywhere. Incoherence, as you said, is a big issue and a lack of any resolution to these moral questions within the season even partially has created much of this theme dissonance.
The problem w/ Guyladriel, it that they made her up to be a Mary-Sue, Mega Karen and a BADDASS Lady Warrior!!!!! She’s basically so HARDCORE to EVERYONE around her that she’s just Unlikable!!!!! This is so unlike the Galadriel that Tolkien explained!!!! Not to mention the whole ‘RINGS OF POWER’ Vanity project, was way off the source material, too much modern social norms injected into it, and just a HUGE Production MESS!!!!! The fans called it out when the Previews came out, and they REFUSED to listen!!!!! So, I have no sympathy at all for Amazon!!!! You can’t make a Pile of Steaming Sh*t, try to dress it up real good, and call it a Gourmet dish that’s to die for!!!!!!💩💩💩💩💩
How contrary her character and the show is to one of the central themes in the LoTR trilogy - that of being merciful, and being merciful is rewarded in the end (for example Bilbo allowing Gollum to survive instead of killing him)
It's very difficult to tell what they meant by many things involving her character, especially regarding her morality. Definitely a departure from Tolkien's concepts of Good.
Having watched the first season of Amazon’s RINGS OF POWER, I have come to the following conclusion: the showrunners, J. D. Payne and Patrick McKay, utterly reject the strict binary morality present in J. R. R. Tolkien’s works, including The Silmarillion. This is not surprising, as both men are Leftist disciples of J. J. Abrams and his franchise-raiding company, Bad Robot. As radicals, Payne and McKay (as do millions of others) believe that the very concepts of “good and evil” are antiquated, outmoded religious throwbacks to primitive aspirations such as high morality, theology, and purity. In this, they are squarely in Sauron’s corner. It is always the tempter that whispers, “Hath God really said-?” To muddy the clear waters of Tolkien’s beliefs, Payne and McKay have reduced Galadriel to a vengeful serial killer, no better than some bloodthirsty Crusader stomping over anyone who will not bow before them. Conversely, they have made the Orcs and Uruks sympathetic because, again, Leftists reject the idea of irredeemable evil-an opinion that both Tolkien and the real world reveal as wholly false almost daily, if not hourly. Good declares, “There is good and evil, life and death: therefore, choose life by doing good.” Evil, however, answers, “Good and evil? Isn’t that a bit naive? A little reductive? After all, hasn’t everyone touched the darkness? My bad: there is no darkness. There is no evil. Death is better.” Therefore, the purity and etherealness of Galadriel must be reduced to mere warmongering. This is revealed in several places, but primarily in Galadriel’s rejection of Heaven (Valinor). At the same time, the Orcs, and the Uruks must be presented as an oppressed minority to conform to Payne and McKay’s slavery motif. Amazon intends to show that saints (even Elven ones) are as corrupt, cruel, opportunistic, and self-righteous as anyone else. We have all heard of revisionist history. Now you are witnessing revisionist fantasy.
Thank you for a fantastic, level-headed, thoughtful video essay. One of my greatest dissatisfactions with the series is the portrayal of Galadriel in the late Second Age. This is not even remotely an on-point portrayal. Galadriel is fundamentally an intellectual, she's determined and athletic, but also wise, not much of a warrior even in the First Age, but certainly someone with a great knowledge of magic, taught to her by the Maiar. Galadriel, as written by Tolkien, is a fallible character, tempted several times in her life, but also a fundamentally ethical and decent character. Even in her wilder younger years, she was not walking around and making arrogant threats to friends and allies among Elves or Men. Finrod was also, though many things, certainly not a shady and ambiguous bully of his own sister.
This character is both reflective of, and role model to, how women are expected to behave in society now. Full of narcissism and cruel disregard of others. This is because living “in one’s truth“ is vastly different than living in THE truth.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="165">2:45</a> "This isn't to say that the audience is simply rooting against Galadriel but is instead hoping for a catalyst event that will change her into a wiser and virtuous protagonist" So this is what's wrong here. This is why me and my friends got to enjoy the show while most of the internet didn't. We never watched any publicity on the show and never ever ever thought of Galadriel as the protagonist or the hero while watching it. I never for a second hoped she would become better or virtuous. In fact, the whole time I watched I was glad because I liked that they basically acknowledge that Galadriel is kind of a sketchy leader and in her origins she was worse. I mean, her virtue in LotR is that she doesn't kill them all and take The Ring of power for herself. She is not redeemable because she ain't really very virtuous in her real book version, only less active. Of course everyone who was hoping for a hero got disappointed... But if you, like me, realized she is meant to be the tragic arrogant walking disaster she is then you do get to enjoy the show
Thanks for adressing the issues with the show in a reasonable and in-depth manner. Two things I'd like to point out. In truth, we could say that all the characters are the voice of a corporation, since Amazon holds the money and has the last word regarding the show. But almost every non-indedepndant piece of entertainment can be described this way. There are always investors, editors and executives that are involved with the product. I don't think Rings of Power are that much different from most corporate sponsored media in that regard. Two, what Galadriel's brother said indeed doesn't fit Tolkien's ideas. However, Tolkien saw the world through Christian lens, believing that there was both absolute good and absolute evil. For instance, in Silmarillion, Eru is definitely and undisputably good. So are the Valar, since they listen to him and acknowledge his leadership. Melkor is considered to be wrong and evil, since he does not agree - even before he actually deserved it. I doubt that the majority of viewers would agree with this worldview, myself included. But it really wasn't that visible in Lord of the Rings, and it did not cause any issues. In Rings of Power, the best bet would be probably to not adress it.
Punishment before the crime… Why not address it? I’m Team Melkor, btw, because he looks for a way to fill the Void. I don’t know why they had Sauron-Halbrand throw him under the bus, everything he did was for Melkor.
I'm glad someone pointed this out, I didn't like how they portray Galadriel. The fact that she noticed on the raft that Halbrand lacks empathy and didn't care about his mates in the slightest, she still takes him under her wing regardless and expresses no empathy for them either. This is out of her character, completely. On a positive note, I hope the writers of season 2, will take all constructive criticism under consideration.
The rings of power is a visual masterpiece but storywise damaged the franchise. Even those with a basic following of Tolkien's work recognize how sub-par the writing is. Rings of power is like season 7 and 8 of GOT without ever having seasons 1-6
Wow, when viewed from this perspective, this sounds like a compelling drama that explores how some elves were corrupted by the darkness. The main problem is that Amazon chose to deconstruct an already established character. It would be nearly impossible now to give her a strong enough redemption arc.
And, why does she have flashbacks and swears to avenge her dead brother, and not her dead husband even though she is offered to us a a somewhat romantic lead character?
I disagree with Finrod being “insidious” there - what he is trying to convey to her in order to awaken her mystical senses, she is simply unable or poorly equipped to decode. So she goes meandering on the wrong path (misinterprets which way HE means is up) because she has a cultish mentality that everything she’s been taught in the Valar’s home is ultimate truth, and no other knowledge should ever disturb her position. Finrod died trying to keep the peace and so that peace is gone from her, clouding her mind; but I do believe it’s really him - AND Sauron at the same time - who attempts to pull her back to the Elves’ mystical roots. I mean first of all Elves are spiritual and always get reincarnated quickly and go back to their families, so her belief that he’s “dead” rests entirely on her assumption that what happened to him was so evil that he couldn’t come back. But what he really means by “touching the darkness” isn’t to manipulate darkness for “good” ends, which she thinks in the first place is her divine right (subjectivity) - but to willingly share in someone else’s experience (outside of Paradise, as it were) and therefore rein in the impulses in oneself that create more negativity. This lesson comes after she’s shown as being bullied by her peers for her intelligence. Remember when Sam said she could “set some folk to rights” and she replies “I could, but it would not stop there”? She knows by then that she’d be a bully (or a “young SS officer” like someone said). This has however nothing to do with Sauron himself “manipulating” her into being a bully - as is depicted with the ocean thingy, it’s the opposite: he is the therapist helping to unravel inner knowledge. Later on, it will be about her wanting his One Ring for herself, and using it against him out of vengeance, not about him trying to send her the Ring as a Trojan Horse (though there is definitely a connection between his spirit and Frodo’s when looking upon her with awe, so let’s think about that one for a moment… because it decodes everything about why she doesn’t get Finrod’s message). “Evil corrupts” is a very broad statement that can be interpreted in many different ways, the message I see in it is that we can all “relate” to an aspect of evil enough to want to be better people and make a better world, by sacrificing our desire for vengeance and choosing the inner light. Your last statement sounds like you’re placing Tolkien himself on a pedestal, so utterly pure that dirty corporate hands are burned off like they’ve touched the Silmarils themselves. Please don’t… as you may see, the story of the Silmarils involves the same idea of worshiping someone so much that your life is plunged in darkness with no hope.
Many good points and there are flaws, but it is only season 1. It would not make sense to have Galadriel find her way off the dark path yet. You can’t consider a character arc until the story is over. Everyone hates this version of Galadriel, but that seems to be their aim.
Well said. To me it's almost like the writers/showrunners don't understand what makes the Silmarillion, LOTR and the Hobbit so much fun: an adventure between some veteran warriors and an unlikely hero or four who will rise to the occasion leaving behind peaceful lives to take their places in the larger story of Middle Earth. The party explores language, lore, cultures and otherworldly places along the way, all while learning to overcome their differences and work together for the greater good. Rings of Power does not do any of that. I was bored after 1 episode and could not find a reason to keep watching.
Strong female character used to mean a female character that could call out the male characters on their BS, but feminists changed the definition to a male character that looked like a female, calling out the other male characters for their BS while pulling even more BS out their butts. Now we see its ultimate evolution: a female character is a male character who looks like a female, but is actually the villain ...
It is also important to mention something else. This show is so badly written that Sauron never deceives Galadriel. He tells the truth (not all of it though), and Galadriel draws all the wrong conclusions by herself. She brings him along for no reason and sometimes despite all reason, and makes him a part of the forging of the rings. Not-Sauron never had to do anything for the "deception" to progress, powered by Galadriel's misplaced self-confidence in her deductive skills. And "Master Craftsman" Celebrimbor's ignorance of alloys. And her not killing, or even denouncing, the one individual she vowed to kill above all other considerations. And other contrivances starting with her and Sauron meeting at random in the middle of an ocean. This whole show depicts a Sauron that has no plan and just went along with Galadriel self-deception after a chance meeting. It's hilarious in a way. As for Galadriel's dagger being sacrificed for the making of the Three, I'm not sure if that's the intention but I see it as the symbol of her bringing her whole race into her personal genocidal revenge plans. Am I too cynical here?
Abbie Emmons made this great video about how writers go too far in trying to make strong female characters empowering and end up making belligerent assholes instead. To me Galadriel is someone who doesn’t need to cut up orcs to be cool , she’s so far above that. She’s powerful enough to be gentle like Superman or Yoda. This show just made her elven Jack Bauer with her torturing Adar and people going on about how dark she is. It’s not interesting, it’s cringey. A real shame because there was stuff I actually liked in the show.
I will look this up! It is definitely a trope at this point, the corporate strong female character. I find the writers too often think power is a substitute for morality and personality, so they make an antihero with no arc. I agree on what makes Galadriel in Tolkien, and I would say it's wisdom. I think the fiery and more prideful Galadriel *could've* worked well for RoP, but this arc lacked coherence for any themes related to that.
I've watched this show too many times through editing and research. Imo, a few hands in the writing want completely different things for Galadriel. Corporations also do not view customers as an audience, but data to be herded to shareholders, so they substitute quality with PR and marketing, so they do not view quality as essential either.
This is a very good video about how terribly written Galadriel has become. I truly loved Galadriel in both Tolkien's great books and Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings Trilogy films, as the former presented a wise, compassionate, powerful woman who chose to use her power for good and was able to overcome the corruption of the One Ring, while the latter also kept all of these facets of her character. This current show just decided to make Galadriel not any of these, but rather an petulant, sociopathic child, one who needs to be punished for her transgressions. Instead, the show makes it seem that she should be held up for butchering an entire race of people, bullying others into doing everything she wants, sacrificing anyone who does not follow her vision, and casting others who might have the best interest of their people as being the villain (aka, show Sauron and Adar). In other words, Galadriel has become the very definition of evil that Tolkien made in his epic masterpieces.
Funny what you said about showing how the main character has flaws. That's the problem, the writers were so inconceivably shite that they didn't even realise they were writing in character traits that would be perceived as flaws. They wanted to write this bad bitch who don't take no shit and won't let anything stop her, and for some reason were confused when the audience didn't warm to her. Yeah people who say stuff like "my girl Galadriel, slay!" and "Yass Queen!" are going to like her, but I don't think it's a shock to anyone that those sorts of people are seldom Tolkien fans. Her character could have started out like that, then as the show developed she could have learnt some humility and become more rational and that would have been fine. But no, we just got a rude, petulant and emotionless bint in the guise of a 'strong independent woman'.
It is like they made this show based on Galadriel actually taking the one ring from Frodo. If this was what they were going for it might have been somthing.
Personally, I will say that 'there is a big tempest in me' when I see what a bunch of woke producers, actors and writers have done to my beloved JRR Tolkien, whom I have read his books since the 1970s and absolutely adored the Peter Jackson film version of 'The Hobbit' and 'the entire LOTR Trilogy. I never made it past watching the trailers for the ROP and am happier for it. Cate Blanchett played the role of Galadriel in the Peter Jackson version and her performance was stunning. She had an aura and mystique about her that was so convincing to her ultimate latent power that the scene with Frodo over the mirror literally gave me chills. Sorry, Amazon, you blew a billion bucks on a turkey...
The writers, one a practicing Mormon according to their interviews online, says he understands Tokein's religious worldview. Why then, sabotage their "strong woman" character, Galadriel, alleged protagonist, by limiting her to reacting to other characters' decisions rather than her decisions moving the plot along? Besides sexist, a passive main character is sloppy, and technically disqualifies her as the protagonist, but it reveals considerable prejudice the authors have against women. Stripping her of the wisdom and power that Tolkein had already assigned to her seriously degrades this character. The identified villains ignore and "talk over" Galadriel which is essentially the writers taking away the agency she needs as a protagonist (as is often done in the world of knuckle headed male chauvinists.) The writers perpetuate the "all strong women are evil" trope brought to us by the Evil Empire for the past four thousand years. Rings of Power views of women are backward compared to Tolkein's. At any rate, I won't be watching the next installment of this train wreck that attempts to set women back 100 years.
Well done analysis of Galadriels character arc. I think one thing people underestimate is just how fragile suspension of disbelief is in fantasy. You've got the usual suspects saying "you can accept a dragon but you can't accept that xxx???" But I think looking at successful fantasy movies proves it, the only movies to really have been accepted by the general public is the original LoTR trilogy. All other fantasy entries are considered childish, silly a combination of the two or worse. The way I see it, if something is slightly off in a historical drama, you can sort of roll with it, we can fill in the truth because we know it, fantasy doesn't allow for such leniency and the second something seems off it catches the eye. Looking at the original Trilogy there are very few magical elements, it is written like a real world where now nearly extinct dragons happened to exist, not a world where anything can happen.
Yes. You can have a world with dragons in it, but it ceases to be believable when the humanoid characters don't act as actual humanoids. Illogic in character traits, motivations, and actions, completely destroys believability in ANY story, even ones where the audience easily accepts magic and dragons. The minute a member of the audience says "No actual person would talk like that or do that", you've lost them.
