Cult Icon

: M

I would say less mature in terms of a certain aspect of (to Tolkien- religious) wisdom as it can be said that Galadriel was more 'worldly' (power hungry and active in the world as a leader) before the events of Fellowship but once Frodo encounters her she is one has already given up on the fallen world (like real Christians and Buddhists do) and is ready to leave it (to the Grey havens, which symbolizes the afterlife ). Naturally she has already given up on worldly power (that is why she rejects the temptation of the Ring). Her mind is one of one who is ready to leave this veil of tears, this great suffering behind. Which is a very religious sort of characterization. Galadriel isn't in the books very much and like Sauron her deeds are talked about in the lore history/notes (Silmarillion) so its open to interpretation/adaptation. There is a lot of hate I noticed from 1. Tolkien purists who worship the texts and want everything to be 100% the same 2. Christians who have co-opted the work, see it as a Christian allegory and find Amazon's effort offensive. 3. Culture war people from the Right like Critical Drinker, right wing pundits and many other content creators who hate it mainly because they hate the people who made it, and their style of writing & directing.

z G 2

Galadriel is supposed to be already ancient and I saw her as primarily as a high official rather than an individual warrior. So the direction the showrunners took with her was clearly an attempt to make her more interesting than someone sitting in an ivory tower and issuing orders.

o

@Lilja K @Jade Bahr new trailer with some new bits

💖🥰

3

It was written a long time ago and It laid out the beginning template for modern western fantasy so the books themselves were are not thrilling for me outside of the remarkable and ancient language. I like Fellowship and was often bored with the next two books, the Hobbit and the Silmarillion. I think Tolkein's great strength was worldbuilding and lorebuilding- populating the world with details in a elegant and intricate way. He was a weaker character writer and not quite up to modern standards. I saw the first 2 films in the theater and couldn't get into them as a teen. This was when the LOTR craze was happening and everybody went to see Return of the King. It was an event like the Starwars Prequels. I missed out on that as I didn't like the first 2 films. Then I read the books a few years ago and re-watched them & it was a completely different experience. The extended editions are more complete and in particular improves Fellowship of the Ring. I think Fellowship is a close adaptation and pretty much a masterpiece. But I still found Twin Towers & Return of the King to be too bloated with CGI action scenes. The worst part is how they omitted the Scouring of the Shire which is thematically important to the story and ultimate meaning. The actual books have few descriptions of violence or battles at all.

Concord has turned into a massive flop costing a claimed $200 million. The game has some of the ugliest characters I've ever seen:

That would be correct as in the novels (Fellowship, Twin Tower, Return of the King, and lore history Silmarillion) Sauron is mainly a moral philosophical concept (Catholic) than being a satan-like demi-god character. He is talked about but rarely 'shown'. I do not think it is correct (Tolkien's intention) to portray him as an anti-hero or a type of humanoid villain from a point of view perspective like in a Sauron show. In a way he and the "Ring to rule them all" are the same thing, the concept of temptation for infinite and immoral greed & power. This metaphysical force binds the story of the Ring together like a glue. So Sauron is in the books a type of backdrop with a backstory. In the book Heart of Darkness (Conrad) and its related film Apocalypse Now (adaptation) the character of Kurtz is used in similar fashion to Sauron, as an overarching moral concept about Evil.

)

w

)

4 o