"The Rings of Power" Vanity Fair article

[Boromir88]

I haven't had a chance to work my way all the way through the article, but some things that stood out to me from this interview with the show-runners.

There's not an over-reliance on CGI:

Payne promises they will be using “every single trick in the book—old school, new school, everything—in a way that we are told no one has attempted.” Some of the stranger monsters may be digital confections, but when orc-like baddies attack The Rings of Power heroes, it’s guys in suits, not piles of pixels.

Ok, that's a good thing.

Confirmation on what material they had access to:

So what did Amazon buy? “We have the rights solely to The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, The Return of the King, the appendices, and The Hobbit,” Payne says. “And that is it. We do not have the rights to The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, The History of Middle-earth, or any of those other books.”

Apparently they can't contradict any known event, even from works that they don't have the rights to, but the 2nd Age material in what they do have the copyright for is very limited.

Perhaps an inkling of what the prior VF article said about Elrond being a politician. My immediate thought was no, because I have in my head Tolkien calling Denethor a politician, and Tolkien commenting that:

...and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.~Letter 52

But it appears young Elrond's storyline is going to be focused on a friendship with Durin IV, which Payne says Elrond is trying to "repair their friendship." Still not quite what I think when I hear "Elrond," but maybe not as bad as when I first heard him described as a "politician."

[mhagain]

Apologies for dragging up Hobbits again, but Tolkien did describe them as clearly having a prehistory before they became known, having already divided into the three subtypes. As for where they are located in this time period - the objections are making assumptions that stretch credibility. Why can they not be living around the Sea of Rhun, for example?

I'm not saying it's a good thing that there are Hobbits in this, and I'd personally prefer if there weren't. What I am saying is that their presence doesn't actually contradict anything written, and it shouldn't take huge feats of mental agility to see that.

On the other hand, Nori Brandyfoot is a terrible name, and really shows how little the creators understand the naming schemes Tolkien used. The correct approach would have been to pull something from an ancient language. Westron didn't exist yet (well it did, but only in the sense that Westron is Adunaic) and anyway if the Hobbits were further east they wouldn't have mixed with those Mannish cultures, but there are plenty of alternatives.

Disa is an OK name for a Dwarf woman. Dís already exists in the Appendices as the mother of Fili and Kili so Disa is OK.

Most of the other created names are of the Nori Brandyfoot type to me - something that sounds Tolkien-ish in a throwaway handwavey sort of way, but nothing he would have actually used himself.

I think I don't like the trailer, but there's really too little in it to form a fair judgement on. I'm keeping faith that the Tolkien Estate will prevent obvious stupidity like changing how Finrod dies.

I don't buy that the creators have rights to nothing aside from the Hobbit and LotR material. That map of Númenor they released is straight out of Unfinished Tales, and Unfinished Tales is the only place it exists, so there must at least be some kind of arrangement for selective use of other material.

Right now my biggest concern is around the Celebrimbor stuff, and the trailer did nothing for that. Númenor can be covered by material from the LotR appendices, G&C did a whole lot of moving around and not much else, so their story would need to be invented anyway, but the full Celebrimbor story only exists in Unfinished Tales (with a very compressed overview in the Silmarillion) and it's such an essential part of the overall story of the Rings. If the creators don't have access to this material I can't see them being able to do this story properly at all, and that's a huge concern: the series is called "Rings of Power" after all.

[Huinesoron]

Let's talk about Gil-Galad.



Despite all the devoted Tolkien fans out on the 'net who are horrified - purely on the basis of the difference from canon, and definitely nothing else that rhymes with dracism - by such things as a non-white elf and a non-white dwarf, you know what I haven't seen? Any complaints about Gil-Galad, who looks nothing like his canon self.

His sword was long, his lance was keen
His shining helm afar was seen
The countless stars of heaven's field
Were mirrored in his silver shield

Gil-Galad's colours are blue and silver; they're the colours on his emblem, and descriptions like "into darkness fell his star" imply that he actually wore star-silver. It's even in his name! But the series has put him in gold.

Also, we know now the colour of his hair, and it's not black. From NoME, 2.IV (dated 1969):

As in the name 'Gil-galad' 'star of radiance' given to Finwain, last High-king of the Eldar, because of the radiance of his silver hair, armour, and shield that, it is said, could even in the moonlight be seen from many leagues afar.

So - unlike dwarf or Nandor skin colour - we have an explicit, late statement from Tolkien that aligns with his later thoughts on Gil-Galad's ancestry (as a descendent of Finarfin, he is kin to Elwe and thus has silver hair in his ancestry, same as Galadriel). And yet the showmakers choose to ignore that.

But y'know what? That's actually fine. Tolkien changed his mind about Gil-Galad's name and ancestry often enough that treating one comment on his hair as definitive is silly; and the point of putting him in gold is to a) show him to be royal, b) distinguish him easily from the other elves, and c) tie him thematically to the apparently mallorn-bearing Lindon. A visual adaptation is very different to a written story; you have to consider different things. (Most notably: written dialogue says everyone's name every couple of lines! Nobody wants TV to have to do the comic book thing, "Gil-Galad! It is I, Galadriel, returned from my meeting with Elrond here!")

Looking at both the trailer and his poster, we can see that Gil-Galad is carrying that tall, 8-pointed star that also appears on Galadriel's armour. It's not the Star of Feanor, which has even arms and 8 additional rays. It could be partly based on the uneven star on Gil-Galad's emblem, but my guess is it's just a generic "Star of the High Elves".

He's also wearing a lot of rings - at least five. I'm not sure I like the look - though really, how often are we going to get a closeup of his hands? I guess it's a reference to the fact that he winds up carrying both Vilya and Narya; or perhaps it's just implying that rings are a massive Elvish vice, and that's why Celebrimbor started making them?

As for the robes: they kind of look like they were made for the poster. There's all that overlaid gold wrapping in intricately embroidered cloth; and then, when you get above the poster, it's a plain gold ?tunic / ?sheet of metal with crossed bandoliers.

And no crown. From Turgon and Finrod we know that elven kings did wear crowns, and the movies even gave Elrond a tiara - so why does the High King not get one? Maybe he just doesn't wear it except on state occasions (perhaps this shot takes place in his back garden).

Originally Posted by mhagain

I don't buy that the creators have rights to nothing aside from the Hobbit and LotR material. That map of Númenor they released is straight out of Unfinished Tales, and Unfinished Tales is the only place it exists, so there must at least be some kind of arrangement for selective use of other material.

This has been speculated. They've bought the TV rights to LotR + Hobbit, but the Estate is involved in a way they weren't for the movies. As you say, they must have granted specific permission to use the map, so they're clearly considering things on a case-by-case basis.

Personally, I hope they're being 'generous'/lenient enough to let the story run as it does in Tolkien's texts. Things like: Tar-Miriel should be forcibly married to Pharazon, and should attempt to climb Meneltarma at the last. Otherwise, you'd be doing the character a complete disservice. Some things (like how Finrod dies) can be worked around, but to do that with Miriel would mean writing her out entirely.

hS

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I don't think we can see Nori's ears, but aren't Hobbits the only ones we know had pointed ears? Tolkien Gateway says it's from Letter 27, and I think it's sometimes used to argue that elves did too (it's the "slightly pointed and 'elvish'" line).

Fair enough. I have to say that here I am a prisoner to my own "headcanon" based on my early readings and perception of the world where, as opposed to all other mainstream fantasy, Elves did not have pointed ears; and Hobbits' description in all the commonly accessible sources absolutely does not mention any difference besides the size, curly hair and hairy feet. This is, I guess, the case of super-thorough nitpicky research on something that is not particularly clearly stated versus generic overall impression, and I, unusually, went with the latter.

In any case, my point about pointy ears being the decisive factor in recognising an Elf stands: it should not be like that. You should recognise an Elf by starlight in their eyes or whatever. But that said, granted, I understand that in the cinema, the former is the easiest way of doing it, also for the bulk audience who already are used to pointy-ears being the distinctive feature of the Elves.

(But I still think that is wrong simply because if having some clearly "nonhuman" body part was the difference between the races, then exactly the case of all Túrins etc being mistaken for Elves would be pretty different. If your world is inhabited by "normal" people and then people with an extra limb, third eye or pointy ears, you are going to focus on that characteristic and it would be the foremost in your mind at all times. Also then raises the question if it were so, why was it never described when anyone from Bilbo to Éomer first saw the Elves etc.)

Originally Posted by Hui

As for #2: if Halbrand is Numenorean, then for a thousand years or more Numenorean society has been turning hard against the elves. I don't think Galadriel would be overly trusting of a people who are claiming most of Middle-earth as their own personal slave-taking playground, and literally had a king who called himself "Lord of the West".

But that would be the explanation for her suspicion of him, yet the trailer shot (anyway, it is just a trailer shot) is framed the way that he is the one who is surprised what sort of alien impostor (or perhaps what sort of species he thought has been extinct) this might be.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I cannot fathom why anybody, even out of their right mind, would don antlers in such a manner as is depicted outside of a religious ceremony. You would get blown over by every gust of wind. Perhaps that is the point and these people periodically travel by wind power..?

I am too stupefied, but well, I guess we have to wait to see more about them. We don't even know who exactly they are. Maybe they are just hunters returning from killing the Antlered-Spawn of Glaurung.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

There's not an over-reliance on CGI:

Certainly a good thing; even though in this era, after two decades of amazement by the possibilities of CGI (effectively started by PJ's LotR, no less), there is nowadays a bit of a revival of "good ol' school puppets and real stuff" (cf. recent Star Wars). It does not make it necessarily "better", it simply is "the new mainstream" to have a bit of "real stuff" in your film.

Originally Posted by Boro

But it appears young Elrond's storyline is going to be focused on a friendship with Durin IV, which Payne says Elrond is trying to "repair their friendship." Still not quite what I think when I hear "Elrond," but maybe not as bad as when I first heard him described as a "politician."

Well, let us anyway remember that these characters have certain development before them (HOPEFULLY!).

I mean, if in the first episode we are going to see Elrond being like, say, "I am illiterate and I hate books", I can already see fans screaming that this is not Elrond, but then the series is going to show how he meets Celebrían and she shows him a book and he is like "meh, no way!" and then he starts reading it and becomes enthralled, and then becomes an expert on Moon-letters, then I say, this is the proper way to do it. Same goes for being a wily politician or anything else.

Originally Posted by mhagain

Apologies for dragging up Hobbits again, but Tolkien did describe them as clearly having a prehistory before they became known, having already divided into the three subtypes. As for where they are located in this time period - the objections are making assumptions that stretch credibility. Why can they not be living around the Sea of Rhun, for example?

I'm not saying it's a good thing that there are Hobbits in this, and I'd personally prefer if there weren't. What I am saying is that their presence doesn't actually contradict anything written, and it shouldn't take huge feats of mental agility to see that.

Basically this. It may be good, may be bad, but it is within artistic license and it is a plausibility that the proto-Hobbits lived anywhere outside Eriador. Or heck, if you really really stretched it, they could even have lived somewhere in Eriador in the beginning, then sometime in the middle of the Second Age be chased away for some reason (say, Númenorean raids), live somewhere in the East for some thousand years, and then move into Anduin Valleys.

Originally Posted by mhagain

On the other hand, Nori Brandyfoot is a terrible name, and really shows how little the creators understand the naming schemes Tolkien used. The correct approach would have been to pull something from an ancient language. Westron didn't exist yet (well it did, but only in the sense that Westron is Adunaic) and anyway if the Hobbits were further east they wouldn't have mixed with those Mannish cultures, but there are plenty of alternatives.

Indeed. I don't know how it was possible, when doing Tolkien, to overlook the central subject of language, as it seems to be the case at the moment. I mean, if the Harfoots either were named something like Déagol or at least something close to the upper-half of the Hobbit family trees, it would be okay. Nori is a Dwarf.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Despite all the devoted Tolkien fans out on the 'net who are horrified - purely on the basis of the difference from canon, and definitely nothing else that rhymes with dracism - by such things as a non-white elf and a non-white dwarf, you know what I haven't seen? Any complaints about Gil-Galad, who looks nothing like his canon self.

His sword was long, his lance was keen
His shining helm afar was seen
The countless stars of heaven's field
Were mirrored in his silver shield

Gil-Galad's colours are blue and silver; they're the colours on his emblem, and descriptions like "into darkness fell his star" imply that he actually wore star-silver. It's even in his name! But the series has put him in gold.

Literally what I said in my previous post. Gil-Galad should be the one in Galadriel's "Joan of Arc" armour.

Originally Posted by Hui

Personally, I hope they're being 'generous'/lenient enough to let the story run as it does in Tolkien's texts. Things like: Tar-Miriel should be forcibly married to Pharazon, and should attempt to climb Meneltarma at the last. Otherwise, you'd be doing the character a complete disservice. Some things (like how Finrod dies) can be worked around, but to do that with Miriel would mean writing her out entirely.

Literally this. If it is true that the Estate is granting some tidbits here and there on a case-by-case basis, then this would be the good piece that should be included. Besides, for instance the Meneltarma thing is such a stunning idea for cinema that I can literally see it in my mind. Of all things, that should be put on-screen. (And you could even shamelessly make it akin to PJ's Frodo&Sam upon Mount Doom-ending, intentionally referencing it, only instead of fire having water - and that would be all perfect as far as I am concerned.)

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Besides, for instance the Meneltarma thing is such a stunning idea for cinema that I can literally see it in my mind. Of all things, that should be put on-screen. (And you could even shamelessly make it akin to PJ's Frodo&Sam upon Mount Doom-ending, intentionally referencing it, only instead of fire having water - and that would be all perfect as far as I am concerned.)

...you're a monster.

---

Tar-Miriel clings to the rock of the Meneltarma, her finery all in tatters, the crown Pharazon forced on her washed away. Below her, the towers of Armenelos are falling; as we watch, the great dome of Sauron's temple cracks and falls to the waves.

Above her, the Holy Mountain towers, wreathed in stormclouds. It is so close now, but still impossibly far. There is no way she can reach it.

Unless...

We see movement, at first seeming to be merely the stirring of the clouds: a downward ripple, as if something is falling through them. It repeats. Lightning flashes. The clouds part - and the Eagles of the Lords of the West emerge.

They are vast and terrible and beautiful - barely even birds any more, their claws clasping lightning, their wings a shadow that blots out the sun. But we can see something in their eyes - not rage or hate, but a pity so deep it becomes something else.

They swoop down from the storm, towards the waters, their eyes fixed on Miriel. She struggles upright, raising her hands in appeal; we see her lips move, forming the prayer to Eru that should have been spoken in the mountaintop hallows. We are with the Eagles now, watching her come closer, until she is covered by their beating wings...

... and they pass over, flying out of the storm, and the wild waters consume Tar-Miriel, last Queen of Numenor.

---

Because sometimes, the Eagles don't come.

And you're a monster for putting it in my head.

hS

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

...you're a monster.

That is one of my best qualities.

Because sometimes, the Eagles don't come.

Yes, I did not want to state it so bluntly, but that is exactly what I was thinking.

And you wrote it so beautifully that now I do want to see it. If any of the Amazon team is reading this, I beg you...

[mhagain]

It occurs to me that the First Age stuff is easily solved. There's enough material in the LotR Appendices to form an outline that can be usable as a prologue, and then all that needs to be done is show some non-specific scenes of Elves and Men in combat. So we could very easily be shown, say, Finrod in combat (at one of the earlier battles), together with a voiceover that just says he died but without explaining how. Fingolfin and Fingon don't actually appear in the Appendices, not even by name. Turgon does but only as a fleeting reference. Of all the First Age Elven Kings, Finrod is the one with most information about him, and we're told he was King of Nargothrond, brother of Galadriel, and gave his life to save Beren (but nothing more specific).


There's also the matter of Gildor Inglorion, with Inglorion meaning "son of Inglor", and Inglor being an earlier name for Finrod from first edition times, but that's probably best kept away from.


For the Second Age, the biggest hole is, as I've said, the story of Celebrimbor. The material in LotR is so thin as to be virtually non-existent, and even if the show can supplement it with the Silmarillion it's barely better. They absolutely need Unfinished Tales for this, particularly if they need to present it in a matter that doesn't contradict Unfinished Tales. Doing a story of Celebrimbor without UT, but also without contradicting UT, would be absurd, and the only solution would be to put the whole matter of the Rings creation and theft by Sauron behind the scenes. Which would also be absurd for a show named "Rings of Power".


On that basis I refuse to believe that the show doesn't have this material, but I guess we'll see.


Everything else seems adequately covered. Númenor, on a quick glance through LotR and comparison with Akallabeth, is very well-covered, but it would, I agree, be a shame to lose the Miriel story. Galadriel is very thinly-covered again, but there's no real detail there anyway, which would free the show up to invent things. Lindon, more or less likewise. And so with pretty much everything else.


If I were to fan-theory about the timeline compression, something that might work might be placing Sauron's capture and imprisonment in Númenor directly after the Númenoreans rout Sauron from Eriador. In other words, a merging of Tar Minastir and Ar Pharazon. There's not a huge amount of info in the Tale of Years (or any other source, barring the Númenorean king list) for the gap between the two anyway, so that should be very doable.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by mhagain

Apologies for dragging up Hobbits again, but Tolkien did describe them as clearly having a prehistory before they became known, having already divided into the three subtypes. As for where they are located in this time period - the objections are making assumptions that stretch credibility. Why can they not be living around the Sea of Rhun, for example?

I'm not saying it's a good thing that there are Hobbits in this, and I'd personally prefer if there weren't. What I am saying is that their presence doesn't actually contradict anything written, and it shouldn't take huge feats of mental agility to see that.

My comments regarding Hobbits were only part of my disdain for the whole. Taken in total, and based on a trailer and an article, it seems every superfluously silly storyline and fan-fictional foible of Peter Jackson has been magnified by the producers here -- and we haven't even gotten to the release of the series. The hapless heaping helping of Halflings is just a symptom of a complete disregard for Tolkien's works.

Do Hobbits exist in the 2nd Age? Sure. Do they need to be in a story that literally has nothing whatsoever to do with them, and who Tolkien literally said do not appear until the middle of the 3rd Age? No, evidently they were only added as a sop for a certain demographic of LOTR film-fan who wants to see the Shire again but can't afford to fly to New Zealand.

Galadriel, for instance, is demeaned as some impetuous Elven Valkyrie in plate armor (yeah, plate armor always cracks me up in Middle-earth), seeking some vengeful vendetta against foes who no longer exist. Given Galadriel is an Elda born in Valinor, who beheld the Two Trees, intuitively saw the malingering evil in Fëanor, crossed the Helcaraxë, and had a millenia-long stay learning at the feet of Melian the Maia, I don't see her as being impetuous, or needing to don armor to be like one of the guys, for that matter. Not to mention all of her brothers died in the 1st Age, Morgoth is locked away, the balrogs are destroyed or hidden away in the bowels of the earth, and Sauron is still Annatar (isn't he?).

As William Cloud Hicklin correctly concluded, Galadriel's appearance reeks of the warrior woman trope, and detracts from the innate abilities and wisdom that made Galadriel one of the most powerful beings in Arda -- this might as well be the cartoon Heavy Metal with a Middle-earth overlay. Perhaps if they fitted Galadriel with a steel-cupped brassiere....

And stranded on a raft with a mortal? Let's ignore the idea that yachting was not one of Galadriel's pastimes, but the mortal grabs her by the hair? An Elf would not survive such effrontery on her person; therefore, I wonder if the mortal is summarily tossed from the raft, and whether his fingers were still intact.

Again, faux pas strictly from a trailer and article. That they would advertise it that way leads me to the inexorable conclusion that this will be a high-priced Elf and Sorcery boondoggle fit for a new World of Warcraft MMORPG. I will lay odds that the game(s) are already in development.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Do Hobbits exist in the 2nd Age? Sure. Do they need to be in a story that literally has nothing whatsoever to do with them, and who Tolkien literally said do not appear until the middle of the 3rd Age? No, evidently they were only added as a sop for a certain demographic of LOTR film-fan who wants to see the Shire again but can't afford to fly to New Zealand.

I think that demographic is larger than you believe it to be, or I should say the demographic isn't just film-fans. It was either Milton Waldman, or one of publishers when Tolkien was trying to get the Silmarillion published that said one of the essential problems with the Silm is "it contained no hobbits." This was decades before the films were made, but I think proves a point that people wanted to read about Tolkien's hobbits long before Jackson's adaptation.

I stand by my previous comment about the 2 Harfoot characters (but because of Legate, I need to add the caveat "if only"). The show runners have said the harfoots are included to fill in a Rosencrantz and Guildenstern type role. If it's only that role, then they would have no direct involvement in resolving the plot or significant interaction with the characters in the series. They would essentially be travelers in the background, translating information to the audience, so their role would be directly passing information to the audience, and not the in-story plot or its characters. Similar to the fox passing through in the chapter Three is Company. In my opinion, that's a creative way to include characters, who are known to be able to avoid being spotted by the "big folk," and not be disrespectful to Tolkien.

Now if the Harfoots take a significant involvement in the battles, or events, interacting with characters, resolving the conflicts then that would be 2 middle-fingers to Tolkien. As well as make them liars, or seriously not understanding the roles of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in a story.

Galadriel, for instance, is demeaned as some impetuous Elven Valkyrie in plate armor (yeah, plate armor always cracks me up in Middle-earth), seeking some vengeful vendetta against foes who no longer exist. Given Galadriel is an Elda born in Valinor, who beheld the Two Trees, intuitively saw the malingering evil in Fëanor, crossed the Helcaraxë, and had a millenia-long stay learning at the feet of Melian the Maia, I don't see her as being impetuous, or needing to don armor to be like one of the guys, for that matter. Not to mention all of her brothers died in the 1st Age, Morgoth is locked away, the balrogs are destroyed or hidden away in the bowels of the earth, and Sauron is still Annatar (isn't he?)

There is more than one way to get to the same final location. Galadriel goes through a ton of growth, and is much different by the Lord of the Rings, the Galadriel that most people are going to be familiar with. A film or series doesn't have the same amount of time to expand and show growth in characters. It doesn't have the benefit of time to explain in a few sentences the passage of time and how a character changes...

'Galadriel was the greatest of the Noldor, except Fëanor maybe, though she was wiser than he, and her wisdom increased with the long years...and she grew to be tall beyond the measure even of the women of the Noldor; she was strong of body, mind, and will, a match for both the loremasters and the athletes of the Eldar in the days of their youth.' ~History of Galadriel and Celeborn

Now if one wants to show growth in a character from a movie or series, how can it be done to show that "Galadriel's widom increased with the long years?" Stories have to have their characters grow, as aggravating as it was to see a weak and uncertain Aragorn, one of your main characters has to grow throughout the story. You don't get the luxury of translating Aragorn's 80 year backstory in a few hours of screen time.

Sure I agree Galadriel in the 2nd Age is probably not the same Galadriel from her rebellion days, but showing how Galadriel does change as a character, that is she wasn't always the Galadriel from Lord of the Rings, would be an accurate portrayal of her growth. It doesn't fit the timeline, but the timeline has to be compressed, and characters in all stories have to show growth.

She fought against Feanor in the Kinslaying:

Even after the merciless assault upon the Teleri and the rape of their ships, though she fought fiercely against Feanor in defense of her mother's kin, she did not turn back. Her pride was unwilling to return, a defeated suppliant for pardon; but now she burned with desire to follow Feanor with her anger to whatever lands he might come, and to thwart him in all ways that she could.

Unless you can convince me that when Tolkien writes Galadriel "fought fiercely against Feanor", he doesn't mean she actually picked up arms "in defense of her mother's kin" then I see no problem with depicting Galadriel as being able to wield a blade, or any other type of weapon.

From her earliest years she had a marvellous gift of insight into the mind of others, but judged them with mercy and understanding, and she withheld her goodwill from none save only Feanor. In him she perceived a darkness that she hated and fear, though she did not perceive that the shadow of the same evil had fallen upon the minds of all the Noldor, and upon her own.

Yes she perceived the evil in Feanor, but also note her pride, her own anger, and the inability to perceive that some piece of Melkor's corruption had fallen "upon the minds of all the Noldor, and upon her own."

She tells Frodo when she's tested and offered the Ring:

"You begin to see with a keen eye. I do not deny that my heart has greatly desired to ask what you offer. For many long years I had pondered what I might do, should the Great Ring come into my hands, and behold! It was brought within my grasp."~The Mirror of Galadriel

This would have to be Galadriel talking about her 2nd Age self, because the One Ring wasn't made until the 2nd Age, and she admits her "heart has greatly desired" to ask for the Great Ring to come into her grasp and "many long years pondered" what she might do with it. Again, this proves a point she might not be a warrior who would fight "fiercely against Feanor," but she was still not the same Galadriel Frodo meets in Lothlorien.

It was not until two long ages more had passed, when at last all that she had desired in her youth came to her hand, the Ring of Power and the dominion of Middle-earth of which she had dreamed, that her wisdom was full grown and she rejected it, and passing the last test departed from Middle-earth for ever.~The History of Galadriel and Celeborn

I'd make a case that 2nd Age Galadriel would not have rejected the Ring of Power if it had come within her grasp then.

[Boromir88]

I'd also just like to point out the criticism of depicting a young Galadriel being an armored up fighter smells of sexism when the same criticism isn't made that depicts Elrond as a fighter.

While it's true Elrond is mentioned a few times being in a position of command, leading an army, or being second-in-command to Gil-galad's forces in the Last Alliance, there is actually no description of him fighting, as in performing the action of "fighting." Galadriel is specifically mentioned to having "fought fiercely against Feanor" in his attack on Alqualonde.

Elrond is in a position of commanding an army (but being a leader of an army in battle doesn't necessarily mean you physically fought in that battle), so I think it's a fair assumption to make that he would have fought, or at least be armored and wielding a weapon to fight if he had to. However, those are just assumptions we make, there's no actual text describing Elrond physically fought anyone in the Last Alliance and Siege of Barad-dur. He says that him and Cirdan stood with Gil-galad when Gil-galad wrestled Sauron, but that's the only action described. Actually something that's associated to Elrond more is he's mentioned as being a skilled healer, arguably the best healer, so one could easily assume he was at the battle in the capacity of being a medic/healer (and 2nd in command). That would be another assumption, but my point being there's more textual evidence to have a warrior, armored up Galadriel than there is of Elrond...yet I don't ever hear anyone griping about Elrond's armored up depiction in PJ's films.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I'd also just like to point out the criticism of depicting a young Galadriel being an armored up fighter smells of sexism when the same criticism isn't made that depicts Elrond as a fighter.

Um, sorry, but no. What you are saying is that the reason I am a number of others have taken badly to the idea of Valkirie-Galadriel is because she is a woman, and had Elrond been in the same spot, we would not be equally as disgusted with the idea. Sorry, but I think that misses the point entirely.

The issue is not that Galadriel is a woman who is swinging a sword; the issue is that the story we can piece together is Galadriel throwing a hissy tantrum, and the sword and armour just happen to be part of the package. She is absolutely a woman who can wear armour and wield weapons - if there is a woman who can do that, it is her. She wasn't named Nerwen for nothing. But, at the same time, she wasn't named Nerwen for her physical prowess alone; the name reflects more than her tendency to masculine hobbies, but a more masculine frame of mind. Hard. Stubborn. Ambitious. Knows her mind. Has it her way. Stern. Perhaps quick to anger in her younger days. Cunning. Proud. You want to start not with the already calmed and grieved Second-Age Galadriel but the more fiery First Age Nerwen - fine, start with Nerwen. But she is not Nerwen because she can swing a sword. She is Nerwen deep inside her soul, a leader, a player of the big game, a strong-minded and strong-willed person, more full of strength than subtlety, but a strength of will as much as of body. She doesn't need a sword to be Nerwen, she just is; she would still be Nerwen if she never rode a horse or held a weapon. Does Nerwen throw a hissy-fit and go on some lonely revenge-quest against non-existent enemies? Especially a Nerwen who has lived through the Wars of Beleriand? Sorry, that's not Nerwen, that is not even Eowyn, that is... I don't know what. A glorified tomboy? But let's not condemn criticism of the butchering of her character to sexism. It's being unfair first and foremost to Galadriel herself. If anything, it's more sexist to reduce a complex female character to an empty suit of armour and claim that this somehow enhances her.

As for Elrond - have we actually seen him fighting in any of the promo materials? Yes, I expect him to be fighting at some point or other, and I expect to see him standing by Gil-Galad. I don't recall seeing any ridiculous Elrond fighting scenes as yet though, so not sure what you are expecting the audience to criticize. I am happy to criticize the ridiculous Silvan Elf stunt-fighting style - but where has Elrond appeared fighting? Or did I block out a whole scene from my memory? If you just mean that he stood wearing armour in Gil-Galad's forces in the LOTR films - I thought that was actually pretty close to how he comes across in the books, and there's no reason to assume someone would not don armour when expecting to be in the midst of a battle. I just thought it was silly that he didn't have a helmet, but I suppose you need your character to be identifiable by the audience. And he is Gil-Galad's herald, and stood beside him in the Last Alliance. It is less natural to argue against his participation than to argue for it. Had he been portrayed as a bloodthirsty butcher - that would be a different story. A reluctant but competent fighter, and a loyal and reliable lieutenant, and a level-headed leader of his men - that is not at all out of keeping with his character. I don't think we see that in the LOTR movies, but as we don't see the contrary either, so why complain there. I think that the argument you've made is pretty weak - or perhaps I have misunderstood it, and if so, my apologies.

Elrond's character is also being butchered, but in his case it's with the role of a "wily politician". I think we've complained enough about that to not have to rehash why it makes me cringe. Can we say that both characters seem to be utterly misunderstood so far - but that we are only given the very beginning of their tales, so there is still a sliver of hope that after the first couple of episodes things will get less ridiculous? And, now that you've brought up Elrond as a mirror for Galadriel (), I realize that it would not be half as cringeworthy to portray Galadriel as a wily politician in the Second Age and early Third Age. She is the ambitious one looking out for her interests and her kingdom's interests, who seeks independence and builds alliances, who initiates the Council of the Wise and is involved with wheels turning in the background of many of the great events of those Ages.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Um, sorry, but no. What you are saying is that the reason I am a number of others have taken badly to the idea of Valkirie-Galadriel is because she is a woman, and had Elrond been in the same spot, we would not be equally as disgusted with the idea. Sorry, but I think that misses the point entirely.

I should have been more clear that my 2nd post comparing Elrond and Galadriel was not directed towards anyone or anything that's been said on this thread, or on the 'Downs. I did something that I never do and went to read youtube comments. Perhaps Galadriel in the show throws a hissy fit (I'm not sure I've seen enough to confirm she does)...but if you want to talk about tantrums? Wow, you don't have to look far to find people losing their minds about Cate Blanchett not being Galadriel, and because of "wokeness" they won't get to see Cate Blanchett in an elegant white gown. Or "Tolkien would be rolling in his grave if he knew Galadriel had a sword." My apologies as well for not being clear there's so much misogyny and sexism in the "fandom" at the moment. This place is a breath of fresh air, even though I still disagree and am glad they're going to show a different Galadriel.

Now if they make her into a Tauriel "This is MY fight" Mary Sue character, then sure the criticisms are going to be more valid. At the moment, they fall flat, when you consider people don't raise the same gripes about depicting Elrond as a fighter.

(Yes I'm doubling down)

In The Hobbit films, Elrond is off hunting orc parties on his borders and then he's armored in Dol Guldur to rescue Gandalf. The latter scene, makes reasonable sense. However, there is whole LOTR and Hobbit movie lore about Arwen's sword named "Hadhafang." It was Elrond's sword, and how great Elrond was wielding "Hadhafang." All made up by Jackson and the team. I don't know about the Amazon series, but the movies are clearly depicting Elrond as a fighter.

And my point here is there is more evidence that would suggest Galadriel is more capable, and has more of a disposition towards fighting (both physically and a greater will) than Elrond. Elrond is most commonly associated with healing, in fact being a great healer.

As I said, Elrond being someone who has commanded armies, and was at the Last Alliance it is a fair assumption to make that he would have actually fought in the battle. But Elrond, unlike Galadriel, is never directly given the action of "fighting" against anyone, or "killing" anyone. It's a reasonable assumption, but that would still be an assumption. Given that he was most known for being a great healer, I think it would be an equally fair assumption that he was at the battle to be serve in the capacity of an advisor (Gil-galad's 2nd in command) and healer. My point is though, we all make an assumption that Elrond would have fought in battles, because he's lead armies a few times. Then we would have to make that same assumption about Galadriel, because she it is directly quoted that she "fought against Feanor" in his attack on Alqualonde.

If you want to consider when Tolkien got philosophical in "Laws and Customs Among the Eldar," then there would even be evidence to suggest Elrond would not want to fight, and would not want to kill anyone, even in battle. Because there Tolkien remarks that a person's healing powers would diminish with the more people they killed. Granted it's not unlike Tolkien to contradict himself when he was writing more philosophically, but to have a problem with Galadriel being depicted as a warrior, and not have it about Elrond, is not a fair criticism. I shouldn't have gone to the extreme of saying it smells of sexism (not with what's been posted on this site) but hop onto youtube and see the hissy fits people who have no idea what they're talking about. I wonder if those trolls ever read Tolkien, because they make the Amazon show runners look like Tolkien scholars.

[mhagain]

The single strongest argument against a wise 2nd Age Galadriel is how she's handled at the end of the 1st Age. That's a story that was developed in multiple variants, but whether she rejects the pardon of the Valar, whether the Valar keep her under the Ban (and IIRC one version where she would have stayed anyway), whichever way you slice it this is still a character who has a long way to go, and would have continued to be a disruptive presence in the Blessed Realm.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by mhagain

The single strongest argument against a wise 2nd Age Galadriel is how she's handled at the end of the 1st Age. That's a story that was developed in multiple variants, but whether she rejects the pardon of the Valar, whether the Valar keep her under the Ban (and IIRC one version where she would have stayed anyway), whichever way you slice it this is still a character who has a long way to go, and would have continued to be a disruptive presence in the Blessed Realm.

Aye. The Second Age Galadriel is not yet wise, or as wise as can be. She is still ambitious, and proud, and headstrong. But she is not brash. I hate that word so much. It might just barely apply to her in the beginning of the First Age, but it's a stretch to say that she was that even with her end of the First Age decisions. She might not have reached her full wisdom, but she is not some impertinent tomboy; at the very least her temper is a little softened with patience and the knowledge of loss. Her descriptions in the show keep putting me in mind of Obara Sand from GOT and various action-movie heroines and that is just not who she is. Pre-Helcaraxe Galadriel might have ridden off on a horse after an argument to chase some bad guys around and pout. End of First Age Galadriel acts on a bigger scale. This is a woman who has kingdoms on her mind. She thinks in bigger goals. Chasing some scattered enemies in a one-[obsessed]-man-mission because she has no bigger ambition (?) or nothing better to do (?) is petty and small and just not the scale to which the end-of-FA Galadriel would apply herself with such zeal. So do I conclude that the show Galadriel really has nothing more to her than action figure sword waving? I am trying very hard to give it the benefit of the doubt, but purely based on the info they have released to date, I am very not happy.

I am not sure why Galadriel irks me more than the other irksome things in the promo material. It might be that I've grown more attached to her after becoming her namesake. I suspect it is a case of the show just disregarding the essence of the world they are portraying, as William has been saying, and all the specific examples of misinterpretation are just the manifestations of the underlying problem. But some things you are more willing to forgive, whereas others just hit a little too close to what is dear and should not be touched. Maybe this is one of mine.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Now if the Harfoots take a significant involvement in the battles, or events, interacting with characters, resolving the conflicts then that would be 2 middle-fingers to Tolkien. As well as make them liars, or seriously not understanding the roles of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in a story.

I would suggest prominently displaying a Hobbit in the trailer, as well as the actress playing the Hobbit doing the voiceover for said trailer, you are going to be dismayed. An Easter egg does not present itself in such manner.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Now if one wants to show growth in a character from a movie or series, how can it be done to show that "Galadriel's wisdom increased with the long years?" Stories have to have their characters grow, as aggravating as it was to see a weak and uncertain Aragorn, one of your main characters has to grow throughout the story. You don't get the luxury of translating Aragorn's 80 year backstory in a few hours of screen time.

Sure I agree Galadriel in the 2nd Age is probably not the same Galadriel from her rebellion days, but showing how Galadriel does change as a character, that is she wasn't always the Galadriel from Lord of the Rings, would be an accurate portrayal of her growth. It doesn't fit the timeline, but the timeline has to be compressed, and characters in all stories have to show growth.

Unless you can convince me that when Tolkien writes Galadriel "fought fiercely against Feanor", he doesn't mean she actually picked up arms "in defense of her mother's kin" then I see no problem with depicting Galadriel as being able to wield a blade, or any other type of weapon.

I would direct you to a single phrase from the passage you quoted:

...she fought fiercely against Feanor in defense of her mother's kin.

Exigent circumstance against the massacre of her kinsmen is wholly different than going all Godfather on a Sicilian vendetta, slaying various and sundry alleged foes in revenge for deaths that occurred in a prior Age. And then donning armor as a commander when we know that never happened in the 2nd Age. Intellectual and spiritual growth does not equal wanton slaughter.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Yes she perceived the evil in Feanor, but also note her pride, her own anger, and the inability to perceive that some piece of Melkor's corruption had fallen "upon the minds of all the Noldor, and upon her own."

This would have to be Galadriel talking about her 2nd Age self, because the One Ring wasn't made until the 2nd Age, and she admits her "heart has greatly desired" to ask for the Great Ring to come into her grasp and "many long years pondered" what she might do with it. Again, this proves a point she might not be a warrior who would fight "fiercely against Feanor," but she was still not the same Galadriel Frodo meets in Lothlorien.

I'd make a case that 2nd Age Galadriel would not have rejected the Ring of Power if it had come within her grasp then.

She was extremely powerful and proud, but not brash or foolish. Celebrimbor handed her a Ring of Power because insight told him she was wise and would use the Ring to preserve and not destroy. Perhaps she would have used the One Ring in the 2nd Age, had it come to her; however, when she makes her remark to Frodo ("...my heart has greatly desired to ask what you offer. For many long years I had pondered what I might do..."), that was late in the 3rd Age after Sauron's return and the slow encircling of Lothlorien with evil.

The call of the One Ring on the other Rings of Power must have been intense at that point in time, and it would have taken everything in Galadriel's power to conceal hers from Sauron. I think once one puts that remark in context, it's clearly meant in regard to the waning of the Peoples of the West (of the Elves, Dwarves and Gondor) in the 3rd Age and the waxing of Sauron's strength.

Originally Posted by mhagain

The single strongest argument against a wise 2nd Age Galadriel is how she's handled at the end of the 1st Age. That's a story that was developed in multiple variants, but whether she rejects the pardon of the Valar, whether the Valar keep her under the Ban (and IIRC one version where she would have stayed anyway), whichever way you slice it this is still a character who has a long way to go, and would have continued to be a disruptive presence in the Blessed Realm.

That she didn't want the mean restraints of being under the thumb of the Valar, forever forced to come and go by their leave, would and did rankle many of the other greater Elves as well. in this case, the strict paternal oversight of the Valar was one of the greatest of their miscalculations, and they made many tactical errors over the Ages.

Much like a parent forbidding their now mature children to go forth in the world, it is natural for a strong-willed person to rebel and strike out on their own. This is not a character flaw, it is a sign of independence and trust in one's own vision of their future. Her will was strong and her blood was still hot and her thirst for knowledge and ambition was unquenched. Again, I don't see this as a flaw that wisdom must overcome.

And in regards to wisdom, it is interesting that everyone ignores the centuries Galadriel spent with Melian the Maia, and I quote from the Later Quenta:

"Yet Galadriel his [Finrod's] sister dwelt never in Nargothrond, but remained in Doriath and received the love of Melian, and abode with her, and there learned great lore and wisdom concerning Middle-earth."

She wasn't some churlish tomgirl Valkyrie out for vengeance at the dawn of the 2nd Age -- that entire plot point is asinine. She had no part in any of the great wars of the 1st Age, like her brothers, but suddenly she gets a hankering to lead armies in anachronistic armor in the 2nd Age?

She was a builder of kingdoms and a preserver of Elvish memory in both the 2nd Age and 3rd Age -- she founded a fiefdom in Lindon with Gil-Galad as her liege, then removed for a while to Lake Evendim in northern Eriador, went on to establish Eregion, and finally Lothlorien. But even then she left that behind and spent some time in Belfalas at the place later called Dol Amroth. She was the original Middle-earth Rolling Stone before Gandalf arrived.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Do remember also that between her ban/refusal at the start of the Second Age, and the fall-of-Numenor era the TV show is set in, Galadriel had had over three millennia to think things over.

[Huinesoron]

I don't know how much impact it's having on people's thoughts, but I've noticed a couple of us seem to be misinterpreting Galadriel's lone quest. She's not a reckless vigilante on the hunt for enemies long dead - she's right. There's literally a shot in the trailer of her finding the Morgoth--spawned enemies she's been insisting are there, while (presumably) Gil-Galad and Elrond brush the idea off. "Morgoth is banished," they say, "the Balrogs are slain, Sauron has slunk off never to be seen again - take it easy, there's no orcs or trolls anywhere this side of the Orocarni."

But there are. And as a high-ranked leader of the Noldor, Galadriel is well within her rights to ignore her possibly-nephew's complacency, take a few soldiers, put on her old armour (because going /un/armoured would be suicidal), and go get the evidence.

Which exists. Because she's right. The Enemy is still there; the War never ended. And the safety of one Artanis Nerwen isn't more important than proving the threat.

(Heck, even at the end of the Third Age she probably wore armour - I've always pictured her tearing down the walls of Dol Guldur with magic in a dress, but realistically, you wear armour so one Orc with a bow doesn't get insanely lucky.)

hS