The Books, The Movies, The Show: Compare And Contrast

[JustHereForFood]

5 hours ago, MJ Frog said:

Well, it’s a good thing this isn’t Middle Ages Europe, then.

I’ve already answered this, but this is a time-honored storytelling expedient in both fantasy and science fiction, lest we weigh down the story with procedure – Star Trek and Star Wars being the worst offenders. The thing that baffles me is the assertion that if we accept a technique used so often it's nearly invisible, then we have no right to expect any kind of internal consistency or logic because look, they’re all speaking modern english! Well yeah. Drama of all kinds is full of these kinds of compromises – these aren’t documentaries we’re watching, but a sort of received version of the story, one which we are layers removed from. We can understand and accept this and yet still have critiques and certain expectations, including a qualified level of "realism".

And, of course, we aren’t talking about Middle Ages Europe. We are talking about a proto western Europe, a mythical, magical, pre-Christian, pre-known-history Europe, as indicated by the sources and traditions it borrows from, and from the stated intentions of the author himself. Given its not-Middle-Ages history, and given that lingua francas (linguas franca?) are a thing, hence the term, it is not at all out the realm of possibility that this part of Middle Earth we are concerned with would have one.

The standard now seems to be casting every show as if it takes place in 21st century America. We even see this in historical dramas including modern adaptations of Jane Austen, in Bridgerton (although I really see that show as being about a new Delos park called Regency World), and a movie about Anne Boleyn whose lead was Black but was otherwise historically accurate. To some people this may feel performative, or pedantic, or too obvious an intrusion of modern sensibilities. Despite that, it may well be that this kind of casting is the best way to go, that the benefits outweigh any other concerns. But reasonable concerns can be raised without being the result of racism. One wonders if there was a production of the Kalevala, or of Norse mythology, that didn’t have people of color, would that be considered racist? Would it depend on the racial make-up of the country producing it?

Anyway, I have said all I can say on this and I find myself having to respond to the same points over and over, so I will get off this merry-go-round. The show has many problems, and casting is very far down that list, if it’s on there at all, but its covering an era we haven’t seen on screen before (despite having the rights to very little of it) and I will continue to watch with interest.

So, one common technique (people speaking modern language) is ok to use, but another one (casting people based on skill and not color of their skin) isn't? And that is not hypocritical?

[johntfs]

8 hours ago, MJ Frog said:

A bunch of stuff.

Back in the day as I understand it Billy Shakespeare's stuff originally premiered at the Globe theater, the female parts were played by men, specifically white men.  I don't know for certain but it seems extremely likely that the Moorish parts in Othello would also be played by white that were either really tan or in some version of "blackface."

Should we still be doing that?  Are we committing some terrible sin against Shakespeare by failing to continue doing that?  Is the ghost of William Shakespeare shrieking in fury at the thought of actual women playing women's role or actual black people playing black people's roles?

Probably not.

Storytellers tell their stories in ways that depend on their audiences.  So, yeah, a miniseries produced and filmed in New Zealand with its main audience expected to be in the 21st century USA will have a cast that tends to reflect the 21st century USA.  Maybe in 40 years a Chinese film company will acquire the rights to LotR and make a film and cast mostly Chinese people in the principal roles.  J. R. R. Tolkien's screaming ghost isn't going to rise up and devour them any more than Shakespeare's will rise to devour plays performed with non-whites or non-males.

[MJ Frog]

2 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

So, one common technique (people speaking modern language) is ok to use, but another one (casting people based on skill and not color of their skin) isn't? And that is not hypocritical?

I've already answered this, but no, it isn't. This isn't "colorblind" casting and it's only become common somewhat recently. It is a conscious attempt to create a diverse cast, a cast that the producers themselves said they wanted to resemble "our world", not the world it was originally set in. That isn't necessarily a problem, but unlike the other technique it is very visible. For example, if you have a show about Vikings and a quarter of those Vikings are POC, people are going to notice.

As I said, with all of this happening in both fictional worlds and historical "To some people this may feel performative, or pedantic, or too obvious an intrusion of modern sensibilities." That doesn't make them racist or hypocritical.

[JustHereForFood]

Not trying to sound pretentious, but I doubt I would have noticed the one black Elf, one black Dwarf and one not-even-sure-what-is-his-ethnicity kid (Theo), if there wasn't all this uproar.

[quarks]

7 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Then there's the timing.  If Cruz was subjected to two years of relentless racism, why did Amazon waited until the show started before addressing it?  Please.  

I'm going to guess that you do not work in the entertainment or publishing industries.

As someone who works in both, I can assure you that Amazon routinely ignores stuff like this all. the. time. Not just on the Amazon website, either, but over on IMDB and Goodreads. On IMDB this harassment has largely been focused on black creatives, especially actors, but also some IMDB users/commentators who have identified as POC on the site; on Goodreads the harassment has primarily targeted queer and trans authors and reviewers. It is a huge, known problem, reported on by Variety and Publishers Weekly, among others, and one that Amazon has done virtually nothing about. Creatives have tried, and ended up having to go to local law enforcement or the FBI, even after trying to get multiple users and in some cases WGA, Pen and other writing/acting associations to help out. 

And to be entirely fair, this is not just restricted to Amazon. Hollywood studios in general are kinda notorious for not responding to harassment and racist incidents, or, in a fun touch, lying that they have done so. And not just studio executives, either (although they are the worst). There is a rather notorious story making the rounds right now involving Florence Pugh and Olivia Wilde that is irrelevant to this show, so I won't get into it, but which illustrates some of the problems involved even for someone like Pugh.

And in this particular case, we aren't talking about on-set harassment/racism; there's been no indication that any of the cast/crew were harassing the POC actors or making racist comments on set - something that Amazon and New Line could have dealt with immediately. We are talking about comments coming from fans - something that Amazon and New Line can say, with some justice, that they can't control, that this is Twitter's problem, not theirs, and that Cordova Cruz needed to take it up directly with Twitter.

And he may have - but Twitter is, again, notoriously terrible at this to the point where Twitter executives have been pulled in front of Congress and FBI agents to discuss the issue. One particularly notorious Twitter account was not stopped until this week, after she left a voice message with Boston Children's Hospital - even though Twitter users had been dutifully reporting issues with that account for years and begging Twitter to shut down that account.

So although I suppose I should say, in all fairness, that we don't know whether or not Amazon was doing something behind the scenes to combat the attacks on Cordova Cruz, or whether or not Twitter closed down some accounts (more likely - but then, trolls often respond to that by just...opening up more accounts), I can absolutely believe that this happened for two years without Amazon/New Line/Twitter doing very much to stop it. It's not an isolated case.

[MJ Frog]

1 hour ago, JustHereForFood said:

Not trying to sound pretentious, but I doubt I would have noticed the one black Elf, one black Dwarf and one not-even-sure-what-is-his-ethnicity kid (Theo), if there wasn't all this uproar.

Nope, that's fair. But race does get noticed, or we wouldn't be worried about having diverse casts, or making sure that underrepresented people get screen time.

[PeterPirate]

7 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

So, one common technique (people speaking modern language) is ok to use, but another one (casting people based on skill and not color of their skin) isn't? And that is not hypocritical?

The problem is Sophia Nomvete brought up a "necessary redress of balance" and the color of her skin in various interviews before the show started.  The implication being she was cast because of her skin color and not her talent.  Which is a shame because she is awesome in the role.  I wish she had talked about being cast because she had a voice that could make rocks shake.  

3 hours ago, quarks said:

I'm going to guess that you do not work in the entertainment or publishing industries.

As someone who works in both, I can assure you that Amazon routinely ignores stuff like this all. the. time. Not just on the Amazon website, either, but over on IMDB and Goodreads. On IMDB this harassment has largely been focused on black creatives, especially actors, but also some IMDB users/commentators who have identified as POC on the site; on Goodreads the harassment has primarily targeted queer and trans authors and reviewers. It is a huge, known problem, reported on by Variety and Publishers Weekly, among others, and one that Amazon has done virtually nothing about. Creatives have tried, and ended up having to go to local law enforcement or the FBI, even after trying to get multiple users and in some cases WGA, Pen and other writing/acting associations to help out. 

And to be entirely fair, this is not just restricted to Amazon. Hollywood studios in general are kinda notorious for not responding to harassment and racist incidents, or, in a fun touch, lying that they have done so. And not just studio executives, either (although they are the worst). There is a rather notorious story making the rounds right now involving Florence Pugh and Olivia Wilde that is irrelevant to this show, so I won't get into it, but which illustrates some of the problems involved even for someone like Pugh.

And in this particular case, we aren't talking about on-set harassment/racism; there's been no indication that any of the cast/crew were harassing the POC actors or making racist comments on set - something that Amazon and New Line could have dealt with immediately. We are talking about comments coming from fans - something that Amazon and New Line can say, with some justice, that they can't control, that this is Twitter's problem, not theirs, and that Cordova Cruz needed to take it up directly with Twitter.

And he may have - but Twitter is, again, notoriously terrible at this to the point where Twitter executives have been pulled in front of Congress and FBI agents to discuss the issue. One particularly notorious Twitter account was not stopped until this week, after she left a voice message with Boston Children's Hospital - even though Twitter users had been dutifully reporting issues with that account for years and begging Twitter to shut down that account.

So although I suppose I should say, in all fairness, that we don't know whether or not Amazon was doing something behind the scenes to combat the attacks on Cordova Cruz, or whether or not Twitter closed down some accounts (more likely - but then, trolls often respond to that by just...opening up more accounts), I can absolutely believe that this happened for two years without Amazon/New Line/Twitter doing very much to stop it. It's not an isolated case.

Nope, I don't work in the industry.  With all due respect, it is irrelevant to my point, which is that the September 7 statement--which was not behind-the-scenes and was decidedly for public consumption--was divisive and counterproductive to the success of the show.  

I'm not indifferent to the points you are making.  I myself am, well, non-European and could tell my own stories of life in America.  I just think it is much better to use honey instead of vinegar to catch flies. And right now it looks like this show is in the hands of activists who make their money pouring vinegar over everything.  

Edited September 18, 2022 by PeterPirate

[quarks]

24 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Nope, I don't work in the industry.  With all due respect, it is irrelevant to my point, which is that the September 7 statement--which was not behind-the-scenes and was decidedly for public consumption--was divisive and counterproductive to the success of the show.  

I was directly responding to the sentences I was quoting, which expressed skepticism that any of this was happening. My response was relevant to those sentences.

But to address this specific point - well, with all due respect in turn, I don't think you have much basis for asserting this? Amazon, after all, received significant media attention for this statement - that is, essentially free publicity, which in turn greatly reduced their publicity/marketing costs, which, yay, great for their bottom line and the show.

In terms of success, well - Amazon rarely if ever releases viewing numbers for their shows*, so we have no idea if this September 7th statement was counterproductive or not in terms of the number of viewers who tuned in. The media attention might have brought more viewers! Or might not have!

What we do have, however, is NASDAQ information - again, publicly available from Google. The NASDAQ info shows that Amazon's stock price slipped from August 23rd through September 7th. After September 7th, Amazon's stock price started to climb again until September 13th, when concerns about FedEx sent it down again.  

Which is to say that the available information suggests the direct opposite of what you are arguing - that far from being divisive, this announcement was applauded by the media, providing free publicity, and at least associated with a temporary rise in the stock price. 

On that note, I think it's important to note that Amazon is a huge, multinational company worth something around $420 billion in 2021, and currently facing significant criticism and potential criminal charges for its labor practices - part of why the stock price was slipping prior to September 7th.  In that context, and at the risk of sounding extremely cynical, I do not find it particularly surprising that Amazon seized an opportunity to present itself as the sort of company that embraces, values and supports its employees, and that Amazon's attorneys/PR people felt that the benefits of at least appearing like a company that stands against racism outweighed any potential negatives.  And the NASDAQ information suggests that it may have - however temporarily - worked. 

*  Without delving into the horror show that is Hollywood accounting, Amazon has a financial interest in not disclosing viewer/streaming numbers for Amazon produced shows. It is also probably pertinent to note that Amazon has a documented habit, as per several filings with the Department of Justice, of saying one thing to shareholders and another thing to publishers and production studios. 

[PeterPirate]

3 hours ago, quarks said:

I was directly responding to the sentences I was quoting, which expressed skepticism that any of this was happening. My response was relevant to those sentences.

But to address this specific point - well, with all due respect in turn, I don't think you have much basis for asserting this? Amazon, after all, received significant media attention for this statement - that is, essentially free publicity, which in turn greatly reduced their publicity/marketing costs, which, yay, great for their bottom line and the show.

In terms of success, well - Amazon rarely if ever releases viewing numbers for their shows*, so we have no idea if this September 7th statement was counterproductive or not in terms of the number of viewers who tuned in. The media attention might have brought more viewers! Or might not have!

What we do have, however, is NASDAQ information - again, publicly available from Google. The NASDAQ info shows that Amazon's stock price slipped from August 23rd through September 7th. After September 7th, Amazon's stock price started to climb again until September 13th, when concerns about FedEx sent it down again.  

Which is to say that the available information suggests the direct opposite of what you are arguing - that far from being divisive, this announcement was applauded by the media, providing free publicity, and at least associated with a temporary rise in the stock price. 

On that note, I think it's important to note that Amazon is a huge, multinational company worth something around $420 billion in 2021, and currently facing significant criticism and potential criminal charges for its labor practices - part of why the stock price was slipping prior to September 7th.  In that context, and at the risk of sounding extremely cynical, I do not find it particularly surprising that Amazon seized an opportunity to present itself as the sort of company that embraces, values and supports its employees, and that Amazon's attorneys/PR people felt that the benefits of at least appearing like a company that stands against racism outweighed any potential negatives.  And the NASDAQ information suggests that it may have - however temporarily - worked. 

*  Without delving into the horror show that is Hollywood accounting, Amazon has a financial interest in not disclosing viewer/streaming numbers for Amazon produced shows. It is also probably pertinent to note that Amazon has a documented habit, as per several filings with the Department of Justice, of saying one thing to shareholders and another thing to publishers and production studios. 

I guess it depends on what one thinks of as a victory.  If the goal is to get press coverage and to bump up the stock price, then perhaps the September 7 statement accomplished its objectives.  If the goal is to get people watching and talking about the show, I would say the statement failed.  If viewership was up or even steady, Amazon would have announced the numbers.  

But the larger context of your post is that fidelity to Tolkien's legendarium is a secondary concern compared to corporate objectives.  Which leads to the possibility that not only will the casting reflect "modern" standards, but the writing of the show will also reflect those standards.  I know from your previous posts that you do not think that is happening.  We will have to agree to disagree on that point.    

[quarks]

59 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

I guess it depends on what one thinks of as a victory.  If the goal is to get press coverage and to bump up the stock price, then perhaps the September 7 statement accomplished its objectives.  If the goal is to get people watching and talking about the show, I would say the statement failed.  If viewership was up or even steady, Amazon would have announced the numbers.  

But the larger context of your post is that fidelity to Tolkien's legendarium is a secondary concern compared to corporate objectives.  Which leads to the possibility that not only will the casting reflect "modern" standards, but the writing of the show will also reflect those standards.  I know from your previous posts that you do not think that is happening.  We will have to agree to disagree on that point.    

1. There's no "perhaps" the September 7 statement achieved press coverage. It did. 

2. In terms of talking about the show - after Amazon released that statement, The Rings of Power started trending on Twitter. It certainly sparked discussions here - I mean, we're in one right now - and in other internet sites. 

So, yes, it got people talking about the show. Did that last? Harder to say, but if I may, the news and social media sites have been sorta overwhelmed with a different prominent British event that started the very next day (September 8) and is still continuing non-stop as I type. I don't think we can assume that people have stopped discussing Rings of Power, or that if they have, it's because of a single statement put out by Amazon and not, say, because they have been temporarily fascinated by a once in a lifetime world funeral.

3. "If viewership was up and even steady, Amazon would have announced the numbers." You don't know that. In fact, all indications are otherwise - as I earlier said, Amazon does not announce or release viewing numbers for their shows. In some cases we can guess that the numbers went up - as with The Expanse, which reportedly got an increased budget for season 5 and then again for season 6, something that probably would not have occurred if the viewing numbers hadn't increased - but Amazon never released those numbers. So that's just a guess. When Reuters managed to obtain some numbers for increased subscriptions to Amazon Prime after the release of The Man in the High Castle, Amazon directly disputed these numbers and noted that subscription numbers do not match viewing numbers. 

That's leaving aside that with streaming, high viewing numbers do not always correlate to success. Probably the most prominent example of that right now is The Sandman, which hasn't been renewed despite breaking Netflix viewing records. Still not a success! That said, Amazon 

4. " Which leads to the possibility that not only will the casting reflect "modern" standards, but the writing of the show will also reflect those standards.  I know from your previous posts that you do not think that is happening."

And you don't know this, either, because it's not true. 

I absolutely do think that the casting and the writing reflect 21st century standards, because this is a show written and produced in the 21st century, and have never said otherwise. What I have been trying to do in this forum topic is to note that some of these things do not necessarily contradict Tolkien's writing, by quoting directly from Tolkien's texts.

In the Book Talk episode topics, however, I have noted places where I think the show is contradicting the spirit of Tolkien's work, even if perhaps the show isn't contradicting the precise wording of Tolkien's text. I would say the prime example of this was the scene where Gil-galad told Galadriel and some other Elves that they had "earned" a special honor, and thus he had "chosen" them to go to Valinor, which seems to me to be a major contradiction of Tolkien's depiction, where the ability to go to Valinor (or Tol Eressea) was not earned, but given by the grace of the Valar. That seemed to me to be a major misinterpretation of the text, and although I didn't get into it in that forum thread, it is also certainly reflective of a current and very American/U.S. centric idea of getting rewarded for hard work. 

But speaking of those standards - look, if you've been reading my posts not just here but in the episode threads, you might have noticed that I've read not just The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, but also The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, almost all of The Histories of Middle-Earth (the Lay of Luthien kinda defeated me, but I did read the Turin one),  the more recent The Nature of Middle-Earth, and pretty much everything else that Tolkien wrote, including the nonfiction essays. Safe to say I love his stuff.  

Also safe to say that although I'm mostly enjoying the show, I'm not loving it - and have questioned many of the writing/script choices that this show has made. And not once have I said that this show is up to the standards - regardless of what century we're talking about - of the books. 

[PeterPirate]

8 hours ago, quarks said:

1. There's no "perhaps" the September 7 statement achieved press coverage. It did. 

But there is no certainty the statement caused the rise in the stock price.

8 hours ago, quarks said:

Amazon does not announce or release viewing numbers for their shows.

Except there were many news articles after the first two episodes dropped that 25 million people viewed the show.  Since then, nothing.  Silence speaks volumes, so they say.

8 hours ago, quarks said:

And you don't know this, either, because it's not true. 

I absolutely do think that the casting and the writing reflect 21st century standards,

This sounds contradictory.  I maintain that parts of this show display the influence of political activism.  That line about Elf workers taking Numenorean jobs was the latest and most egregious.  The Nattering Nabobs of YouTube are having a field day with that one.  There is no way JRR Tolkien would have ever written it.  One, it contradicts the way he wrote the Numenoreans, and two, he hated allegory.  And again, it suggest they will invade Valinor because of racism, not out of a desire for immortality--which if it turns out that way, will be bad, very very bad.   You can agree with me or disagree with me, but you can't do both.  

8 hours ago, quarks said:

But speaking of those standards - look, if you've been reading my posts not just here but in the episode threads, you might have noticed that I've read not just The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, but also The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, almost all of The Histories of Middle-Earth (the Lay of Luthien kinda defeated me, but I did read the Turin one),  the more recent The Nature of Middle-Earth, and pretty much everything else that Tolkien wrote, including the nonfiction essays. Safe to say I love his stuff.  

I have noticed that, and I would say you display the most knowledge of the posters here.  But you also seem to be someone who works in or close to the entertainment industry--you did point out that I do not.  We have significantly different perspectives.  As an outsider, I do not consider "buzz" to be a good thing if it leaves a sour taste in peoples' mouths.  In fact I don't like the way Amazon has conducted its marketing campaign, with its "superfan" trailers and access journalists.  It has been cynically manipulative, and I consider the September 7 statement and subsequent news articles and talk show chatter as parts of the whole. 

Again, that's just my outsider's point of view.  Mileage varies. 

Edited September 19, 2022 by PeterPirate

[JustHereForFood]

18 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

But the larger context of your post is that fidelity to Tolkien's legendarium is a secondary concern compared to corporate objectives.  

Isn't that more or less true of every TV/movie production, with the exception of some independent passion projects?

[PeterPirate]

7 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

Isn't that more or less true of every TV/movie production, with the exception of some independent passion projects?

I suppose.  To my knowledge New Line didn't tell Peter Jackson how to adapt the LOTR books.  But I've heard the original director of the Hobbit movie quit/left because he received too much pressure from the studio to epic-fy it.  

But to address your question in general, I think there is a fundamental difference between making changes in order to make a movie more watchable to audiences, and doing so according to the socio-political opinions of the people who are making the changes.  The Hobbit movies may have been a hot mess to fans of the lore (I have refused to see the third one) but at least they were pretty faithful to the plot of the book, just with a lot of unnecessary crap thrown in.  The movies got good ratings at Metacritic--better than House of the Dragon is getting--which means the expectations of the general viewing audience were met.     

Paradoxically, the reason I am still watching this show is because it is so detached from the source material.  I have no idea what these showrunners have in store for us.  This works for me--I have read The Silmarillion and can follow what they are doing.  But a lot of other people may choose to watch other things because they just want to be entertained and/or they wish to avoid a political debate over a TV show.  

[quarks]

4 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

But there is no certainty the statement caused the rise in the stock price.

True, but...once again, I never said that. I said that the statement was associated with a rise in the stock price, and not a fall in the stock price. You've been trying to argue that the statement was harmful. I'm just noting that the one piece of hard evidence that we have doesn't suggest that.

4 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Except there were many news articles after the first two episodes dropped that 25 million people viewed the show.  Since then, nothing.  Silence speaks volumes, so they say.

Or maybe not. Amazon has, after all, been silent on the viewing numbers for all of their other current shows (The Wheel of Time, The Boys, Paper Girls, Reacher, Night Sky, The Summer I Turned Pretty, and so on), renewing some of them (The Wheel of Time, The Boys, The Summer I Turned Pretty) but not others. 

Digging a bit deeper:

Variety, September 3rd, dutifully repeated that 25 million figure, but also noted that Amazon never explained where those numbers came from:

https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/lord-of-the-rings-ratings-rings-of-power-premiere-amazon-1235359350/

The Hollywood Reporter provided more context on September 3rd:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/lotr-rings-of-power-day-1-record-viewing-amazon-1235211790/

As The Hollywood Reporter noted, this is the first and only time that Amazon has released any viewing numbers whatsoever. The article confirmed that Amazon did not release any context for those numbers, and then adds, at the bottom of the number, that actual streaming numbers would not arrive for several weeks, finishing with this sentence:

"The first Nielsen streaming figures for The Rings of Power will arrive in about four weeks, unless the ratings service does a rush report sooner."

(Bolding mine.)

Which is interesting, since as Variety and other outlets later reported, those initial numbers were not, as it turned out, from Amazon, but from Nielsen, which provided early estimates of streaming minutes (not viewers). Variety, behind a paywall, explains again why none of these numbers tell us much: 

https://variety.com/vip/amazons-rings-of-power-ratings-figure-doesnt-reveal-much-1235372858/

So it seems like this is less, as you are suggesting, Amazon remaining silent because the numbers are bad, and more Amazon remaining silent because they are using Nielsen numbers, the next set of which will not be released until the end of the month. It doesn't mean that the viewing numbers have, indeed, gone down. It just means that Amazon took the very unusual step, for them, of repeating Nielsen estimates, and then went right back to their usual policy of not releasing any numbers at all. 

But while we're here, I think it's important to highlight this discussion of The Wheel of Time with an Amazon Studios executive:  

https://tvline.com/2021/12/22/the-wheel-of-time-viewership-season-2-plans/

which again notes that the Nielsen metrics do not paint a full picture, which is why Amazon is using a number of different ways to track content and measure success. 

So, again, we have no idea if that September 7th statement did, indeed, impact the show's success - either by your method of viewership numbers or by Amazon's more complicated methods. Maybe! But also, maybe not!  

7 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

This sounds contradictory.  I maintain that parts of this show display the influence of political activism.  That line about Elf workers taking Numenorean jobs was the latest and most egregious.  The Nattering Nabobs of YouTube are having a field day with that one.  There is no way JRR Tolkien would have ever written it.  One, it contradicts the way he wrote the Numenoreans, and two, he hated allegory.  And again, it suggest they will invade Valinor because of racism, not out of a desire for immortality--which if it turns out that way, will be bad, very very bad.   You can agree with me or disagree with me, but you can't do both.  

Well, again, I was responding specifically to the "21st century standards," line, but since you've shifting this to "political activism," it is perhaps important to note that The Lord of the Rings was written during a fairly major political event, and although I agree with Tolkien that it's not an allegory for World War I or World War II, it does form part of his response to those events. And I don't think that the specific points of what you are calling "political activism" are all that far removed from Tolkien or the 20th century.  

Let's take a look at that elf workers line, for instance. I think for once both of us are in complete agreement that it was a terrible, terrible line. Not just clunky - though, yeah, clunky - but unearned by the show, which so far has shown us:

1. Elves pretty much only doing labor when forced to by orcs.

2. Elves again avoiding labor by hiring people outside their race, Dwarves, to do construction work for them.

3. Some Elves leaving Middle-Earth entirely, and definitely not taking anyone's jobs.

4. The only Elf in Numenor not just not taking away anyone's job, but demanding that people work for her - that is, providing jobs!

5. With the arguable exception of Isildur's one friend, Numenoreans not having any issues finding a job. 

And the show has failed to show us:

1. Any indication of how the economy of Middle-Earth works at all. I mean, do Numenoreans even HAVE jobs and wages? Coins? Paper money? What trades are we talking about? The show hasn't given us the slightest clue, which is particularly odd given that it's not exactly proceeding at a rapid pace.

So, yeah, I thought that line landed with a complete thud and I'm not at all surprised to hear that fans are mocking it. 

But what's interesting here to me is that this whole "immigrants will be taking our jobs!" is not a brand new 21st century concept, but a very real concern in Britain during the 1920s and 1930s and the lead up to World War II, and something that we know Tolkien discussed with the Inklings at Oxford. It is reflected in both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, both of which discuss the fear of outsiders and the concerns of what economic impacts these outsiders will have. The Hobbit is fairly straightforward about this; The Lord of the Rings more subtle, but it's there in both books. It's also in some of the material in The Histories of Middle-Earth, where multiple groups - including the Numenorians - express concern about the financial impact of incoming immigrants, and question what will happen to them if they welcome outsiders.

So while I'd like to think that Tolkien would have, how to put this, written better dialogue, or at least done more to set up that line, the concept itself is not alien to either Tolkien's personal experience or his writings, or contradictory to anything in the text. 

[RobertDeSneero]

On 9/19/2022 at 4:05 PM, PeterPirate said:

But to address your question in general, I think there is a fundamental difference between making changes in order to make a movie more watchable to audiences, and doing so according to the socio-political opinions of the people who are making the changes. 

Updating the material to cater to 21st century socio-political opinions makes the show more watchable for me.  

On 9/19/2022 at 5:05 PM, quarks said:

1. Any indication of how the economy of Middle-Earth works at all. I mean, do Numenoreans even HAVE jobs and wages? Coins?

In episode 3, Halbrand tries to get a job and holds up some coins while offering to buy a round.

[Raachel2008]

On 9/18/2022 at 3:08 PM, PeterPirate said:

The problem is Sophia Nomvete brought up a "necessary redress of balance" and the color of her skin in various interviews before the show started.  The implication being she was cast because of her skin color and not her talent.  Which is a shame because she is awesome in the role.  I wish she had talked about being cast because she had a voice that could make rocks shake.  

You are looking at it backwards, the implication is not that she was cast because of her skin color and not her talent. Her talent is implicit; the idea that the redress of balance was to be made with talented actors is pretty obvious.

What she is saying is what any black actor out has been saying for ages, from kids at Mickey Mouse Club to Viola Davis: I have talent, I just need you casting/directing/producing people to understand that almost all roles can be played too by black/POC.

Her talent is what gave her the role. If she had none then another black and more talented actress would be playing Disa. To presume that any show is casting POC just because they are POC and not because they have talent is, with all due respect, extremely narrow minded.

Elves are not real. Dwarves are not real. Dragons are not real. Sirens are not real. They can be white, black, purple, green and it doesn't matter at all.

[PeterPirate]

3 hours ago, Raachel2008 said:

Her talent is what gave her the role. If she had none then another black and more talented actress would be playing Disa. To presume that any show is casting POC just because they are POC and not because they have talent is, with all due respect, extremely narrow minded.

Did the role have to go to a Black actress?  What if there was a White actress who was more talented?  Those are the kinds of questions that get raised when the word "redress" is thrown into the mix.  A statement like "I'm very grateful that race played no role in my casting", or even "It's about time race played no role in casting elves and dwarves" would have left no room for doubt that she was cast based on her talent.  

I'm not saying I disagree with the sentiment.  Just that the word "redress" is problematic. 

[Emily Thrace]

On 9/18/2022 at 9:54 AM, MJ Frog said:

I've already answered this, but no, it isn't. This isn't "colorblind" casting and it's only become common somewhat recently. It is a conscious attempt to create a diverse cast, a cast that the producers themselves said they wanted to resemble "our world", not the world it was originally set in. That isn't necessarily a problem, but unlike the other technique it is very visible. For example, if you have a show about Vikings and a quarter of those Vikings are POC, people are going to notice.

As I said, with all of this happening in both fictional worlds and historical "To some people this may feel performative, or pedantic, or too obvious an intrusion of modern sensibilities." That doesn't make them racist or hypocritical.

The producers have have stated that "cast the best people for the roles" which is the pretty much the definition of color blind casting.

Its fundamentally racist to insist that historical Europe and fantasy based there should be completely white. For one its not accurate and has only been shown that way previously because of racist assumptions about the past. A classic example is any Spanish ambassador to the Tudor court. In almost all depictions he is a white guy with a Spanish accent when in fact there were several during the Tudor era who were of Moorish ancestry and at least one of Jewish descent. There have been black people in England since Roman times. There was a black family who were court entertainers for generations in England. I could literally list dozens of examples of people of color who were erased from history. So complaining about fantasy not being lily white is supporting racist ideas and tropes even if its not the initial intent. This falls under the unconscious bias definition of racism. Where you are responding to and enforcing prejudices in the world around without realizing it.

For another insisting on white only or even majority white adaptions also enforces racism because it excludes POC from roles and opportunities. It simply exacerbates the problem rather than offers any kind of solution. One thing we have learned in the last 50 years is that having diversity in media helps normalize diversity IRL.

I also feel like in general complaining about diverse casting not a valid criticism in fantasy it more a personal wank. To put it bluntly its a you problem not a show problem. Your essentially complaining the show does not match the picture in your head.  Which isn't really a solid critical argument or a reasonable expectation. That's half the reason the show isn't catering to "Tolkien Purists" they would never be happy with someone else's vision any way.

As for what Tolkien would have thought he may not have been a modern man but definitely believed in working together regardless of our differences.  Lord of the Rings was also rather diverse for its day. He included Jewish influences (Dwarvish has deliberate Hebrew roots and their several Jewish influences on the development of his Dwarfs) and Romani (Harfoots) and various Celtic influences. He even had plans for an African equivalent in Middle Earth. I think his reaction would be less upset and more chagrined he hadn't thought of it himself.

[JustHereForFood]

On 9/20/2022 at 12:05 AM, quarks said:

Let's take a look at that elf workers line, for instance. I think for once both of us are in complete agreement that it was a terrible, terrible line. Not just clunky - though, yeah, clunky - but unearned by the show, which so far has shown us:

1. Elves pretty much only doing labor when forced to by orcs.

2. Elves again avoiding labor by hiring people outside their race, Dwarves, to do construction work for them.

3. Some Elves leaving Middle-Earth entirely, and definitely not taking anyone's jobs.

4. The only Elf in Numenor not just not taking away anyone's job, but demanding that people work for her - that is, providing jobs!

5. With the arguable exception of Isildur's one friend, Numenoreans not having any issues finding a job. 

This breakdown made me chuckle. Well done! Now I am imagining Galadriel with a "You expect me to work?!" bewildered face.

On 9/20/2022 at 12:05 AM, quarks said:

So while I'd like to think that Tolkien would have, how to put this, written better dialogue, or at least done more to set up that line, the concept itself is not alien to either Tolkien's personal experience or his writings, or contradictory to anything in the text. 

Like with many other examples recently, I think that Tolkien would get called "woke" nowadays.

[Raachel2008]

22 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Did the role have to go to a Black actress?  What if there was a White actress who was more talented?  Those are the kinds of questions that get raised when the word "redress" is thrown into the mix.  A statement like "I'm very grateful that race played no role in my casting", or even "It's about time race played no role in casting elves and dwarves" would have left no room for doubt that she was cast based on her talent.  

I'm not saying I disagree with the sentiment.  Just that the word "redress" is problematic. 

And what about all the hundreds of roles that could have gone to black actresses and did not for the simple reason nobody imagined a black surgeon or a black Nasa engineer or  a black ballerina, or, the old gods forbiden, a black elf?

You are nipticking the choice of a word, because, clearly, what Sophia meant was  'thanks fuck someone decided that this giant smörgåsbord of blonde, white people needed some diversity and gave us, POC, the chance to audition for roles".

TPTB decided they wanted a more diverse cast. That begins with sending casting sides where no race/ethnic is listed OR specifically asking for POC actors so they garantee they will end with a very talented black, hispanic, asian, whatever person playing the part. I have no problem with either one. Diversity is good. Diversity is great. 

What is really problematic is thinking that Sophia got the role solely because she is black. She got the role because she is taletend as fuck. End of the story. 

[PeterPirate]

16 minutes ago, Raachel2008 said:

You are nipticking the choice of a word, because, clearly, what Sophia meant was  'thanks fuck someone decided that this giant smörgåsbord of blonde, white people needed some diversity and gave us, POC, the chance to audition for roles".

Possibly.  But words have meaning.  We don't really know what she meant when she used redress".  According to Merriam-Webster, the word, as a noun, can mean "relief from distress" or "compensation for wrong or loss".  

Frankly, I don't have much of a problem with Sophia Nomvete's use of "redress", and I find her exuberance during her interviews quite appealing.  It's just a very small piece of the larger problem I have with the way Amazon has marketed this show, especially the abysmal, cynical statement on September 7.  

[Raachel2008]

4 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Possibly.  But words have meaning.  We don't really know what she meant when she used redress".  According to Merriam-Webster, the word, as a noun, can mean "relief from distress" or "compensation for wrong or loss".  

Frankly, I don't have much of a problem with Sophia Nomvete's use of "redress", and I find her exuberance during her interviews quite appealing.  It's just a very small piece of the larger problem I have with the way Amazon has marketed this show, especially the abysmal, cynical statement on September 7.  

Her wording is not a problem, but your problem with a diverse cast is a problem. No matter how Amazon marketed the show, diversity is one of the things they did right. I have no idea what they did on September 7, but casting people other than white was one of their best decisions. 

[PeterPirate]

36 minutes ago, Raachel2008 said:

Her wording is not a problem, but your problem with a diverse cast is a problem. No matter how Amazon marketed the show, diversity is one of the things they did right. I have no idea what they did on September 7, but casting people other than white was one of their best decisions. 

This exemplifies the problem I have with the marketing of this show.  If someone expresses a criticism of this show, their words can be twisted around and they can be called a racist.  That is the nature of the political process and this show has been politicized.

I recommend you read the September 7 statement.  I posted it upthread.  I know to some people it is an act of defiance against an onslaught of relentless racism.  To me it is a ploy by a multi-multi-billion dollar corporation to use race to divide people and avoid dealing with legitimate criticism about this show.  Just in the last 24 hours Amazon got caught removing 1-star reviews from its website and was forced to add them back.  

[Emily Thrace]

6 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

This exemplifies the problem I have with the marketing of this show.  If someone expresses a criticism of this show, their words can be twisted around and they can be called a racist.  That is the nature of the political process and this show has been politicized.

I recommend you read the September 7 statement.  I posted it upthread.  I know to some people it is an act of defiance against an onslaught of relentless racism.  To me it is a ploy by a multi-multi-billion dollar corporation to use race to divide people and avoid dealing with legitimate criticism about this show.  Just in the last 24 hours Amazon got caught removing 1-star reviews from its website and was forced to add them back.  

The problem with this is it is simply your interpretation of events. There is no real proof its just what you think Amazon is doing. Removing and restoring reviews could just mean they still working on their standards for posting. The statement was meant to address the review bombing which I saw myself. I don't see any evidence of any being mislabeled as a racist, either here or elsewhere. I have seen the early reviews on imdb which used the N-word more than most rappers. I have also remember the other review bombing campaigns for things like Captain Marvel. Their has been a racist reaction to the show Amazon has done well to address that. I think the fan criticism may be being dismissed more as you can't please everyone than any political agenda. Networks almost never address fan criticism, the show runners might but Networks usually don't. I'm not sure what you want them to do here? Beg for forgiveness from Tolkien fans everywhere.

[QuantumMechanic]

Could this never-ending tit-for-tat perhaps move to the “In the Media” thread or something like it?

[rmontro]

11 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

I recommend you read the September 7 statement.  I posted it upthread.  I know to some people it is an act of defiance against an onslaught of relentless racism.  To me it is a ploy by a multi-multi-billion dollar corporation to use race to divide people and avoid dealing with legitimate criticism about this show. 

Forget the September 7 statement, what about the "Superfans" video they released?  All three Superfans were gay, said so, and all had talking points about diversity and representation.  Clearly they were marketing the show on the basis of diversity and representation.  Which is fine, I guess, but none of this shows me that they had creating a Tolkien show at the forefront of their mind.  

I guess since they couldn't, or wouldn't make a real Tolkien show, they had to sell it on the basis of something else.  And by the way, from what we've seen, none of the Superfans were actually Tolkien fans at all.  

[Raachel2008]

11 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

This exemplifies the problem I have with the marketing of this show.  If someone expresses a criticism of this show, their words can be twisted around and they can be called a racist.  That is the nature of the political process and this show has been politicized.

No, that's on you, not on me. You still haven't given me one single valid reason why it is a problem that Disa is played by a black woman. Your only argument is that it doesn't seem fair - to whom, I ask - and that it is not Tolkien like. It is you politicizing the show. The rest of us are just happy to see more diversity and waiting for things to getter better, because we know one thing is not tied to another.

I think the writing on this show sucks big time. I think that even without the Simarillion, etc they could have structured the story and the plots better.  I think they made a couple of mistakes in the casting process. I absolutely detest how some stuff is extremely poorly thought, like the speech about the elves stealing people's job or not a single person at the tower having a brain other than Bronwyn. I hate that some of the absurdity on screen could have been easily fixed, yet nobody cared to do what a fic writer would solve from home in 10 minutes.

And yet, I can see that all those problems have abolutely nothing to do with the fact some actors have dark skin or that Amazon, among the trillion things did to promote this show, also wanted to target minorities that were not really important/contemplated in Tolkien's work,.

To ignore that racism/all the isms exists and that part of the fandom is tying one to another - that part of the fandom did that before the show even aired or after only two episodes - is, at best, naivety. 

I'm done with this discussion. If the show really really annoys you so much, I would recommend not watching. I've done it several times in the past, wrt others series/stuff, and it is trully liberating.

[PeterPirate]

1 hour ago, rmontro said:

Forget the September 7 statement, what about the "Superfans" video they released?  All three Superfans were gay, said so, and all had talking points about diversity and representation.  Clearly they were marketing the show on the basis of diversity and representation.  Which is fine, I guess, but none of this shows me that they had creating a Tolkien show at the forefront of their mind.  

I guess since they couldn't, or wouldn't make a real Tolkien show, they had to sell it on the basis of something else.  And by the way, from what we've seen, none of the Superfans were actually Tolkien fans at all.  

To me it wasn't about who the superfans were or that they cared about representation.  If anyone can find applicability of Tolkien to their lives, more power to them.  But yeah, it turns out these superfans aren't much at being fans of Tolkien.  They're just parts of Amazon's marketing strategy as far as I'm concerned.   

32 minutes ago, Raachel2008 said:

No, that's on you, not on me. You still haven't given me one single valid reason why it is a problem that Disa is played by a black woman. Your only argument is that it doesn't seem fair - to whom, I ask - and that it is not Tolkien like. It is you politicizing the show. The rest of us are just happy to see more diversity and waiting for things to getter better, because we know one thing is not tied to another.  

Try reading some of my previous posts.  I've already said I have no problem with the casting of Sophia Nomvete, or POC in general.  

4 hours ago, QuantumMechanic said:

Could this never-ending tit-for-tat perhaps move to the “In the Media” thread or something like it?

That's for the mods to decide.  For what it's worth, I try to not respond when quoted unless I have something new to say.  

Edited September 23, 2022 by PeterPirate

[QuantumMechanic]

At about 16:00 of this interview Owen (Elendil) mentions that they had filmed a scene where Elendil explains why Numenor hates the Elves.....and they cut it (and extended the horse-riding scene).  (facepalm)

[quarks]

On 9/21/2022 at 7:29 AM, RobertDeSneero said:

In episode 3, Halbrand tries to get a job and holds up some coins while offering to buy a round.

Oh, thanks! Somehow I missed that.

4 hours ago, QuantumMechanic said:

At about 16:00 of this interview Owen (Elendil) mentions that they had filmed a scene where Elendil explains why Numenor hates the Elves.....and they cut it (and extended the horse-riding scene).  (facepalm) 

(triple facepalm)

Like, look, I'm enjoying this show, despite my recent mithril rant, and despite the weird pacing which manages to be both too slow and too fast at once.

And this is an editing decision that manages to do both. I loved the horse riding scene, don't get me wrong, but it slowed down the show. And not explaining the entire Numenor versus the Elves stuff meant skipping over some important motivation stuff.

[Anduin]

I had a thought about Galadriel. When Frodo offers her the ring, she talks about how terrible she'd be. How she'd do evil in the name of good. Projecting back, that's what we're seeing in the show. Look at how driven she is. How she's rallying everyone to her cause. With the ring, with no limits, she'd become a Knight Templar figure. After wiping out all the orcs, she might start turning on allies for being insufficiently zealous.

This might not have been what Tolkien had in mind, but I see it as a plausible interpretation.

[ICantDoThatDave]

That would be a interesting way of portraying her story, a deep insight into her character.  Unfortunately, I don't think it's what this show is showing, or has even considered.

Edited October 2, 2022 by ICantDoThatDave

[Haleth]

Oh, I dunno.  This version of Galadriel in the show is definitely fanatical. I can see how she’d fear returning to her youthful zealousness if given the power, how she’d fear losing control. 

[PeterPirate]

13 hours ago, Anduin said:

I had a thought about Galadriel. When Frodo offers her the ring, she talks about how terrible she'd be. How she'd do evil in the name of good. Projecting back, that's what we're seeing in the show. Look at how driven she is. How she's rallying everyone to her cause. With the ring, with no limits, she'd become a Knight Templar figure. After wiping out all the orcs, she might start turning on allies for being insufficiently zealous.

This might not have been what Tolkien had in mind, but I see it as a plausible interpretation.

12 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

That would be a interesting way of portraying her story, a deep insight into her character.  Unfortunately, I don't think it's what this show is showing, or has even considered.

12 hours ago, Haleth said:

Oh, I dunno.  This version of Galadriel in the show is definitely fanatical. I can see how she’d fear returning to her youthful zealousness if given the power, how she’d fear losing control. 

I think the portrayal of Galadriel is intentional.  They've had a least three characters remark about her, shall we say, personality defects.  What we're seeing is not inconsistent with the Galadriel who almost accepted Frodo's offer of the One Ring.  

While I'm here I will add Cate Blanchett's portrayal of Galadriel in that scene was stellar.  Say what you will about Peter Jackson's forced conflict and romance, the high points made up for it and then some.  

Edited October 2, 2022 by PeterPirate

[JustHereForFood]

I have no problem with Galadriel being this determined against an obvious evil. The only negative effect it can have is on her, with the PTSD she's going to suffer and the sense of loss one can experience once they complete their mission (we could hear it in her line in the first episode "Why is it not gone from here (her heart)"). But I can't see any moral problem, like her turning on good guys. 

[PeterPirate]

In the latest episode, Galadriel says this to Adar:

Your kind was a mistake.  Made in mockery.  And even if it takes me all of this Age, I vow to eradicate every last one of you.  But you shall be kept alive, so that one day, before I drive my dagger into your poisoned heart, I will whisper in your piked ear that all of your offspring are dead and the scourge of your kind ends with you.  

Some years ago there was a commercial for the Raid brand of insecticide wherein a woman said "Their kind deserved to die".  Obviously she was talking about roaches and such, but there was so much backlash to the use of "their kind" that Raid was forced to re-shoot the commercial so she said "They all deserved to die".  

Then there is this exchange early in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.    

Spock:  They are dying.
Kirk:  Let them die.  

William Shatner positively hated saying that line, and he insisted they film him immediately expressing regret.  Director Nicholas Meyer cut that part from the film, which earned him Shatner's enmity for all time. 

There is also this snippet from the same movie, uttered by Brock Peters playing Admiral Cartwright:

To offer the Klingons safe haven within Federation space is suicide.  Klingons would become the alien trash of the galaxy.  And if we dismantle the fleet, we'd be defenseless before an aggressive species with a foothold on our territory.  The opportunity here is to bring them to their knees.  Then we'll be in a far better position to dictate terms.

Peters was not able to say these lines in a single take, and needed to take a break in the middle.  

So, yeah, there is precedence for characters in fictional dramas to utter some ugly things.  Still, Galadriel's words take things to a whole new level.  

I wonder if this show needs to come with a warning to parents.  If this show is meant for families, a lot of parents are going to need to teach their children that Galadriel's words are inappropriate in the extreme.  Even if Galadriel is on a character arc, the redemption might be several years away.  Amazon would do well to issue another press release about relentless racism.  

Edited October 3, 2022 by PeterPirate

[Affogato]

I made a pass at rereading parts of the unfinished tales again. It has a long section on Galadriel and Celeborn. When she meets Celeborn changes a lot, and changes his flavor of elf.  It does give a clear picture of Galadriel as someone who is a warrior (although Tolkien shies away from women being warriors except at great need), athletic, given to at least two periods of obsession. In other words the Galadriel in this show seems to be a viable interpretation of
Galadriel.

[Affogato]

6 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

In the latest episode, Galadriel says this to Adar:

Your kind was a mistake.  Made in mockery.  And even if it takes me all of this Age, I vow to eradicate every last one of you.  But you shall be kept alive, so that one day, before I drive my dagger into your poisoned heart, I will whisper in your piked ear that all of your offspring are dead and the scourge of your kind ends with you.  

Some years ago there was a commercial for the Raid brand of insecticide wherein a woman said "Their kind deserved to die".  Obviously she was talking about roaches and such, but there was so much backlash to the use of "their kind" that Raid was forced to re-shoot the commercial so she said "They all deserved to die".  

Then there is this exchange early in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.    

Spock:  They are dying.
Kirk:  Let them die.  

William Shatner positively hated saying that line, and he insisted they film him immediately expressing regret.  Director Nicholas Meyer cut that part from the film, which earned him Shatner's enmity for all time. 

There is also this snippet from the same movie, uttered by Brock Peters playing Admiral Cartwright:

To offer the Klingons safe haven within Federation space is suicide.  Klingons would become the alien trash of the galaxy.  And if we dismantle the fleet, we'd be defenseless before an aggressive species with a foothold on our territory.  The opportunity here is to bring them to their knees.  Then we'll be in a far better position to dictate terms.

Peters was not able to say these lines in a single take, and needed to take a break in the middle.  

So, yeah, there is precedence for characters in fictional dramas to utter some ugly things.  Still, Galadriel's words take things to a whole new level.  

I wonder if this show needs to come with a warning to parents.  If this show is meant for families, a lot of parents are going to need to teach their children that Galadriel's words are inappropriate in the extreme.  Even if Galadriel is on a character arc, the redemption might be several years away.  Amazon would do well to issue another press release about relentless racism.  

In Tolkien I think we are talking about real evil -- real, actual, palpable evil. Irredeemable evil.  I mean it is a process, as we saw with Gollum, but once you are there, you are there. Your balrog is not a misunderstood bunny.

Star Trek was a humanist story, mostly acted by humanists, where evil is relative and perpetrators of evil can be redeemed.

Edited October 3, 2022 by Affogato

[PeterPirate]

1 hour ago, Affogato said:

In Tolkien I think we are talking about real evil -- real, actual, palpable evil. Irredeemable evil.  I mean it is a process, as we saw with Gollum, but once you are there, you are there. Your balrog is not a misunderstood bunny.

Star Trek was a humanist story, mostly acted by humanists, where evil is relative and perpetrators of evil can be redeemed.

Well, differences in religious cosmology aside, my point is that Captain Kirk had a redemption arc within a two-hour movie.  And by "redemption", I mean the character is seen in a favorable light by the general audience, and/or has returned to whatever good qualities they had before the start of the arc.  

Galadriel's arc--if she gets one--is going to take a couple years.  That's a long time for people to have to live with an unfavorable opinion about her.  

[Affogato]

3 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Well, differences in religious cosmology aside, my point is that Captain Kirk had a redemption arc within a two-hour movie.  And by "redemption", I mean the character is seen in a favorable light by the general audience, and/or has returned to whatever good qualities they had before the start of the arc.  

Galadriel's arc--if she gets one--is going to take a couple years.  That's a long time for people to have to live with an unfavorable opinion about her.  

I have a favorable opinion of Galadriel, she is growing on me. I'm starting to see the reason why the people around her may see her as abrupt or rude. And you know, being rude and even harsh and judgemental are not, in and of themselves, the worst things in the world. Also, worrying about what others think of you is not in itself a basic virtue.

[PeterPirate]

41 minutes ago, Affogato said:

I have a favorable opinion of Galadriel, she is growing on me. I'm starting to see the reason why the people around her may see her as abrupt or rude. And you know, being rude and even harsh and judgemental are not, in and of themselves, the worst things in the world. Also, worrying about what others think of you is not in itself a basic virtue.

Up until this episode I would have agreed with you.  In my opinion what we heard her say to Adar goes way, way beyond being harsh, rude, or judgmental, or suffering from ptsd. 

[Affogato]

43 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Up until this episode I would have agreed with you.  In my opinion what we heard her say to Adar goes way, way beyond being harsh, rude, or judgmental, or suffering from ptsd. 

you know, I consider myself a fairly good person who likes to see good in people, but I'm okay with what she said to Adar. Particularly considering the times and the circumstances.

[QuantumMechanic]

Also, unlike in the real world, in Tolkien’s subcreated world there is absolute, first-person knowledge that a god of evil literally exists and of the things he’s done.

[PeterPirate]

13 minutes ago, QuantumMechanic said:

Also, unlike in the real world, in Tolkien’s subcreated world there is absolute, first-person knowledge that a god of evil literally exists and of the things he’s done.

True. But Adar said "We are creations of The One." 

If Eru Ilúvatar allows the existence of Orcs in Arda, who is Galadriel to take it upon herself to wipe them out?  

[Affogato]

1 hour ago, PeterPirate said:

True. But Adar said "We are creations of The One." 

If Eru Ilúvatar allows the existence of Orcs in Arda, who is Galadriel to take it upon herself to wipe them out?  

Her zeal at this may be the reason god exiles her from heaven, but he apparently allows her free will outside it. 

[PeterPirate]

56 minutes ago, Affogato said:

Her zeal at this may be the reason god exiles her from heaven, but he apparently allows her free will outside it. 

I agree Galadriel and all creatures have free will.  But in this show, she is not exiled from heaven.  She is granted access to heaven, but jumps off the boat that is taking her there.  She literally turns away from heaven.  How does that not make her evil?  

Edited October 4, 2022 by PeterPirate
Verb tense consistency

[quarks]

1 hour ago, PeterPirate said:

I agree Galadriel and all creatures have free will.  But in this show, she is not exiled from heaven.  She is granted access to heaven, but jumps off the boat that is taking her there.  She literally turns away from heaven.  How does that not make her evil?  

That whole thing continues to irk me (for different reasons) but I don't think it makes her evil - she gave up the opportunity to return to paradise and see her parents and other loved ones again in order to root out evil.

(Also, as the show clarified in the first couple of scenes, Valinor in the show (and books) is not exactly paradise - evil creeps in from time to time. And although the show hasn't exactly gotten into this, Galadriel and the others weren't exactly heading to the Elven afterlife in the Halls of Mandos, waiting to return to life, but to Tol Eressea.)

[Affogato]

2 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

I agree Galadriel and all creatures have free will.  But in this show, she is not exiled from heaven.  She is granted access to heaven, but jumps off the boat that is taking her there.  She literally turns away from heaven.  How does that not make her evil?  

This may explain why, in Unfinished Tales, Tolkien is said to have told so many varied stories about when she is exiled and exactly what happened, because why and when she was exiled  (which he'd committed to in LOTR) seemed increasingly important to him.  He also seemed to vacillate about to where the exile happened, whether others were exiled at the same time, what exactly were the pardons, when she connects with Celeborn (who changes his Elven race and orgins to fit into different stories).

46 minutes ago, quarks said:

That whole thing continues to irk me (for different reasons) but I don't think it makes her evil - she gave up the opportunity to return to paradise and see her parents and other loved ones again in order to root out evil.

(Also, as the show clarified in the first couple of scenes, Valinor in the show (and books) is not exactly paradise - evil creeps in from time to time. And although the show hasn't exactly gotten into this, Galadriel and the others weren't exactly heading to the Elven afterlife in the Halls of Mandos, waiting to return to life, but to Tol Eressea.)

I do think there is a 'pride and arrogance goes before a fall' theme , but she manages to avoid it at the end.

[PeterPirate]

49 minutes ago, quarks said:

That whole thing continues to irk me (for different reasons) but I don't think it makes her evil - she gave up the opportunity to return to paradise and see her parents and other loved ones again in order to root out evil.

(Also, as the show clarified in the first couple of scenes, Valinor in the show (and books) is not exactly paradise - evil creeps in from time to time. And although the show hasn't exactly gotten into this, Galadriel and the others weren't exactly heading to the Elven afterlife in the Halls of Mandos, waiting to return to life, but to Tol Eressea.)

Yeah, I really wrestled with question of whether I should classify Galadriel as "evil".  In the end I decided to go with it because of the following post:  

On 10/3/2022 at 7:53 AM, Affogato said:

In Tolkien I think we are talking about real evil -- real, actual, palpable evil. Irredeemable evil.  I mean it is a process, as we saw with Gollum, but once you are there, you are there. Your balrog is not a misunderstood bunny.

Star Trek was a humanist story, mostly acted by humanists, where evil is relative and perpetrators of evil can be redeemed.

So I just used the vocabulary that was being used in the discussion as a whole.  

I guess my main point is that Galadriel is, if not evil, then at least she is not good.  I'm thinking about this snippet by Gandalf in ROTK:  

Other evils there are that may come; for Sauron is himself but a servant or emissary. Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.

In other words, just because Galadriel may be proven right about Sauron being in Middle Earth, she has been specifically chosen by the gods to not be the one to fight him.  She didn't stay in Middle Earth to fight evil, but to quell the tempest that is in her.  I'm quite certain they are going to show a lot of bad consequences because of that.  

I gotta say, there are a lot of parallels between Galadriel and Kim Wexler. 

[Affogato]

8 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Yeah, I really wrestled with question of whether I should classify Galadriel as "evil".  In the end I decided to go with it because of the following post:  

So I just used the vocabulary that was being used in the discussion as a whole.  

I guess my main point is that Galadriel is, if not evil, then at least she is not good.  I'm thinking about this snippet by Gandalf in ROTK:  

Other evils there are that may come; for Sauron is himself but a servant or emissary. Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.

In other words, just because Galadriel may be proven right about Sauron being in Middle Earth, she has been specifically chosen by the gods to not be the one to fight him.  She didn't stay in Middle Earth to fight evil, but to quell the tempest that is in her.  I'm quite certain they are going to show a lot of bad consequences because of that.  

I gotta say, there are a lot of parallels between Galadriel and Kim Wexler. 

I don't know Kim Wexler.

By evil, and palpable evil, I mean the kind of black miasma that rises from the Nazgul and makes wounds that don't heal. A literal blight on the landscape, a power that destroys without counting the cost. There is that in Tolkien and it can't be redeemed.

Honestly the elves who fought were all called back together, by way of a reward, I thought. Exile made, was lifted. She didn't want to go. Gil Galad wanted her to go, and he is just another elf guy, who has and wants to keep control over his part of middle earth and doesn't want her shaking it up. Is he evil? He isn't telling everyone about the rotting tree and he is being sly and dishonest with the dwarves? No, likely not evil, but pretty darn fallible. In Tolkien there is a place for 'not perfect', too.

Gandalf meant 'after we are dead or gone far away'. Galadriel clearly feels a responsibility to middle earth and she is still there. She made a decision to stay. I don't see why that makes her evil.