The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022)

[SympathysSilhouette]

Some of the dumbest pop culture criticism I have ever heard/read came after the first two episodes of this dropped.

 

I am talking about the accusation of Galadriel being a Mary Sue.

Galadriel!

In the originally trilogy, she is canonically the third most powerful character (after Sauron and Gandalf).

Fourth at worst, depending on how you feel about Tom Bombadil (who is deemed by some as the most powerful being in Middle Earth because of how easily he resists the One Ring's powers but he plays no active role in the events of those books so it's rather moot as a point).

 

Calling Galadriel a Mary Sue is showing your entire ass and proving you have zero familiarity with the source text.

 

Also if you want to argue she's too overpowered for an elf, I guess you should take that up with Tolkien himself.

[Cult Icon]

6 hours ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

Some of the dumbest pop culture criticism I have ever heard/read came after the first two episodes of this dropped.

 

I noticed that there are a lot of attacks on the show on social media (particularly on youtube, this has been going on for a year), because it was made by Amazon, is based on appendices/Silmarillion and it has woke casting.

 

There isn't much about pre-LOTR Galadriel in Tolkein's Silmarillion.  It's basically a fantasy-history/lore book, and rather choppy/disjointed at that.  She was a sort of demi-goddess.  I don't recall anything about her wearing Aragorn's outfit and being an adventurer lol.  She was more of a political leader. 

 

I haven't had a chance to watch the episodes yet but it looks like they got the Golden age/decline of the elves rather right.  In Tolkein's universe, in the prehistory Elves were superhuman/higher beings that lived well.  But they declined, in part due to the wars.  By the time of the Hobbit/LOTR the elves are already very declined, and Galadriel is passive and leaving middle earth.

 

 

[SympathysSilhouette]

It is canon that Galadriel single-handedly tears down Dol Guldur. Yet she is being called a Mary Sue for defeating a troll.

 

They have changed he character from the books though, but not in terms of power level. Galadriel should be busy founding her own kingdom at this point in the time line (roughly speaking), not still chasing Sauron.

But I guess they did this because they really wanted to have her as a character on the show.

[Cult Icon]

9 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

It is canon that Galadriel single-handedly tears down Dol Guldur. Yet she is being called a Mary Sue for defeating a troll.

 

They have changed he character from the books though, but not in terms of power level. Galadriel should be busy founding her own kingdom at this point in the time line (roughly speaking), not still chasing Sauron.

But I guess they did this because they really wanted to have her as a character on the show.

 

The actress that plays her is classically beautiful (M-Clark).  She looks like the type of woman that would be a goddess for artists prior to the 20th century.  I am OK with Amazon making their own story.  The unpublished Tolkein stories/history/lore was unpublished for a reason- it was unfinished.  So he didn't really have a real story for Galadriel in the first place.  All these stories/notes were put together by his son, Chris Tolkien and published decades later.

 

I see the critics of Amazon saying that they are ruining Tolkein- doesn't make sense to me.  To ruin something means that there was a detailed story in the first place LOL.

[Cult Icon]

🥰💖

[Cult Icon]

About the original trilogy, IMHO Bombadill is the weakest portion of Fellowship.  I can accept Jackson cutting it.

 

But "Scouring of the Shire" is vitally important.  He cut this too.  I think it's because they wanted a hollywood ending and not the bittersweet and deeper ending.

[Cult Icon]

Finished episode 1.  The best part of the show is the visual art.  Really beautiful.

[Enrico_sw]

Interesting analysis

 

[Cult Icon]

Episode 4 dropped. 

 

My interest in this show has totally declined compared to House of the Dragon.  I didn't even watch past episode 1 yet.  I started Episode 2, didn't like it and switched to HOD.

[Cult Icon]

Galadriel has turned out to be a flawed character.

 

Not very goddess-like or wise, extremely serious, no sense of humor, bull-headed, a zealot.

 

I think one of the fan criticisms of her character writing- that she is too immature to be an ancient being- is on the mark.  I was expecting a Galadriel that was more like the one in Fellowship of the Ring, but instead the character comes across as a young, troubled person.

 

I think the theory that Halbrand is Sauron is making some sense.  Season 1 may be about the gang defeating Adar, and Sauron taking over his position.  Next season will be about the forging of the Rings.

[Enrico_sw]

Even Forbes, whose actual job is to shill for big companies, says it's bad.

 

Interesting. So, no amount of bribery corporate sponsorship can save this show.

 

Quote

‘The Rings Of Power’ Has Inexplicably Terrible Writing

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2022/09/17/the-rings-of-power-has-inexplicably-terrible-writing/?sh=17fee4945ed5

 

[Stromboli1]

That's when you know the show sucks!

 

Guyladriel is boring besides the character sucking and the Harfoots are terrible.

 

Don't know how to save this show when it's bland, boring, characters suck, etc.

[Cult Icon]

22 minutes ago, Stromboli1 said:

That's when you know the show sucks!

 

Guyladriel is boring besides the character sucking and the Harfoots are terrible.

 

Don't know how to save this show when it's bland, boring, characters suck, etc.

 

Episode 4 has Adar, the best character in the show.  

 

Yea the show isn't very good, but I read the Simarillion and got some value out of the artwork.

 

Looking forward to House of the Dragon Episode 5.

[Cult Icon]

4 hours ago, Enrico_sw said:

Even Forbes, whose actual job is to shill for big companies, says it's bad.

 

Interesting. So, no amount of bribery corporate sponsorship can save this show.

 

 

 

Forbes has a very strong conservative bias though- it might factor into a bad review for LOTR.  Forbes Magazine is basically for conservative business people, not liberal ones.

[Enrico_sw]

1 hour ago, Cult Icon said:

 

Forbes has a very strong conservative bias though- it might factor into a bad review for LOTR.  Forbes Magazine is basically for conservative business people, not liberal ones.

 

Conservative bias? Based on what?

 

I'm not an expert on Forbes, but I know some of their critics, particularly Scott Mendelson, who shilled for Disney during the Star Wars movies catastrophe, and blamed everything on the fans. I also remember this article on "Libs of TikTok".

 

Blaming average folks, shilling for big companies in the name of Wokeness, pitting people against each other => that sounds very liberal to me.

[Cult Icon]

25 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said:

 

Conservative bias? Based on what?

 

The owner of Forbes and the editorial stance- super conservative.  Also how the magazine worships capitalism and billionaires.

[Enrico_sw]

22 minutes ago, Cult Icon said:

 

The owner of Forbes and the editorial stance- super conservative.  Also how the magazine worships capitalism and billionaires.

 

Capitalism has merged with the Woke movement (which was easy, because capitalism has no convictions).

 

Bezos is the embodiment of this. He's a billionaire who forged a monopoly that regulators fear. Among his arsenal, there's of course his financial power, but also his moral/soft power. Woke is the moral shield that protects his fortune.

 

Worshipping billionaires has become common among leftists (as long as the billionaire validates their narratives).

[Enrico_sw]

Socialism doesn't despise powerful people. It just wants to replace the old powerful folks with new ones. In every place socialism was tried, a new cast of powerful (and rich) people was put in place, and tyranny ensued.

 

But, I guess I'm rambling on again, like a broken record (and this post is out of scope, I know )

[Cult Icon]

4 hours ago, Enrico_sw said:

 

Capitalism has merged with the Woke movement (which was easy, because capitalism has no convictions).

 

 

Before "woke" there were "liberal" billionaires that emerged in the 1990s, like Steve Jobs.  California, the home of High tech is culturally liberal.  Bezos is a later entrant.  In the 1980s and earlier American "liberalism" was actually a lot more socialist.  So American liberalism moved closer to conservative views in the 1990s.

 

Both US conservatives and liberals are pro-capitalist, the main difference is in degree.  Liberals have more socialist policies; conservatives are more hardcore capitalists.