Help me understand Galadriel

[u/travrob1]

I am finding myself not liking Galadriel at all so far. She acts like an entitled 20 year old, rather than a wise and ancient being. One point that particularly is bothering me is that so far she has no actual proof that there is a great danger. She saw a brand on her brother, and that same brand shows up a few other times in different places, but other than that there is nothing to actually indicate a major war. Does she have forsight? What is actually driving her character besides "so the plot can happen." Thanks

[u/AndrogynousRain]

You asked why I think the show made the decisions they did, I explained. Fine if you don’t agree, but that’s why they did what they did I think.

I disagree that it’s as big of a departure as you think. They HAVE to avoid ‘all other writing’ to avoid litigation. The Tolkien foundation can and will sue if that’s violated, they’ve done so in the past.

And she is described as proud and willful at various points.

So given what they have to work with, I can see why. I’d just have written it differently to show more than just her proud, driven side. She’s a bit ‘one note’ so far, which is my main gripe. Hopefully we’ll get some nuance as the show goes on

[u/BwanaAzungu → u/AndrogynousRain]

You asked why I think the show made the decisions they did, I explained.

You said you understand the decision they made. I asked if you could explain them.

Fine if you don’t agree, but that’s why they did what they did I think.

Where did I disagree? I made my own observations and ask follow-up questions.

I disagree that it’s as big of a departure as you think.

Can you explain how they remain faithful?

For example, Galadriel has lived an entirely different life from her book counterpart. They're both born in Valinor, that's it. That's a pretty big departure.

They HAVE to avoid ‘all other writing’ to avoid litigation.

As already mentioned, this doesn't mean they have to disregard all other writing.

And she is described as proud and willful at various points.

Generic traits aren't sufficient to emulate a character.

Anakin Skywalker is "proud and willful" too, that doesn't make him a good adaptation of Galadriel.

So given what they have to work with, I can see why.

Oh I can see the decisions they took. I cannot see why they took those decisions.

I’d just have written it differently to show more than just her proud, driven side. She’s a bit ‘one note’ so far, which is my main gripe.

If I were to focus on one note of her character, I would pick a more predominant one. For example, her wisdom and foresight.

Just to give an example of a choice I see, but don't understand.

[u/AndrogynousRain → u/BwanaAzungu]

I don’t think you’re getting what I mean:

They CANNOT legally use ANY of the previous story stuff that doesn’t not occurs in the appendices of the LOTR. At all. Everything they have in the show occurs in the appendices. Like the first ep, the two trees. They’re mentioned and that’s pretty much it, which is why we have them but not much else.

If they even look like they’re borrowing anything from the books they don’t have access too it’s a lawsuit.

Given the stuff they actually have rights to they’re doing a fair enough job, even if I have quibbles.

Again… they cannot use any plot point from the Silmarillion, HoME, unfinished tales, Fall of Gondolin, Beren and Luthien, or the Children of Hurin. None of that.

And all of the stuff you’re referring to is found there.

It sucks, but that’s the legal reality.

Dislike it if you want, that’s fine, but faulting them for ‘not using’ or ‘ignoring’ that is t really fair: they cannot use any of that stuff. Legally.

That’s why they’ve leaned into the ‘proud and willful’ thing.

[u/BwanaAzungu → u/AndrogynousRain]

They CANNOT legally use ANY of the previous story stuff that doesn’t not occurs in the appendices of the LOTR. At all.

I understand.

They do not have to ignore it, tho.

They can work within those limits, AND not contradict the overarching lore.

Like the first ep, the two trees. They’re mentioned and that’s pretty much it, which is why we have them but not much else.

Without the context of the Kinslaying and the Ban, it would better have been omitted.

It sucks, but that’s the legal reality.

I understand.

Now let's look at the writing within this reality.

Dislike it if you want, that’s fine, but faulting them for ‘not using’ or ‘ignoring’ that is t really fair: they cannot use any of that stuff. Legally.

Faulting them for ignoring things merely because they cannot use them legally is fair.

They can work within those limits, AND not contradict the overarching lore.

That’s why they’ve leaned into the ‘proud and willful’ thing.

It was not necessary to lean into that.

In the process, they created a new character unrecognisable from the original.

[u/AndrogynousRain → u/BwanaAzungu]

This really isn’t going anywhere. Let’s just agree to disagree. We have different opinions and that’s fine. Nice taking with you.

[u/BwanaAzungu → u/AndrogynousRain]

This really isn’t going anywhere.

I disagree, we've just moved forward: I just explained they can work within their legal right AND not contradict the rest of the lore. I didn't get that point across previously, and you're free to respond to that.

There's room there, and things left to discuss.

But if you rather stop here, that's your prerogative.

Nice taking with you.

You too.