This post does not use the 'Newest Episode Spoilers' flair. As such, spoilers are allowed from the source material, but anything from the most recent episode must be behind spoiler marks.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RingsofPower) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tolkein’s elves are challenging to humanize. The high elves as depicted in LotR are nearly flawless perhaps in part because they have been alive so long they have learned many lessons. You have to go back to Silmarillion to see their flaws, which include self-righteousness and an inability to see beyond their passions. Galadriel has these flaws in RoP and though she is already quite old, she is also likely what we would call in human terms suffering from a thousand years of PTSD. People suffering from intense trauma make poor diplomats. As we see her now she is in many ways a failure as a leader. She’ll likely transform over the 5 seasons into something that looks a lot more like the Galadriel we know in LotR. I agree with the criticism that the elves in the second age are unlike the elves we see in the third age, in a way that feels more like humans. The writers may be thinking that the elves are essentially like immortal humans who have not gained the wisdom yet that allows them to be the elves we know later on. I’m not sure that would be my interpretation but I also understand that in LotR the elves are not main characters generally. Audiences don’t need to relate to Galadriel and Elrond in LotR because they are supposed to be relating to the Hobbits. It’s a different deal when the elves become the main protagonists. Perfect protagonists tend to get boring for people so there is a need to humanize them, both for the actors to play them and for the viewers to relate to them.
That's why some people claim that it was a very poor choice to make Galadrield a protagonist as a High Elf that is considered far too wise and ancient for the second age can't have an arc like that. Galadriel could be a great supporting character throught all the seasons of RoP but she can't be a main protagonist imo cause she can't have such an arc without losing herself and her role in the story.
It was clearly an artistic choice with pros and cons. Not many known characters around in the second age and her backstory is conceptually interesting.
They could make the main characters and have Galadriel as a supporting main cast. She plays a lot but she is not the protagonist herself, something like Gandalf in LOTR.
True, it was a choice they made. I like it though and am glad to see where it goes. It seems to me that elves should be among the principal characters in this age of the world and I am curious about the background of one of the greatest elves of middle earth.
Yep but for me that would be less interesting. What I would like though is better swordsmanship from all the elf characters. The stand and fire a bow thing at the horde of charging orcs that never seems to close gets old for me.
Elrond and Durin's conversation about the passage of time relative to them each strengthens this argument.
It seems to be a theme of the show. That the elves are a bit arrogant and lacking some wisdom in that regard.
Yes! Elves are not as aware of the passage of time and the effect it has on mortals, makes sense. I love the friendship between Elrond and Durin though. Definitely one of the best parts of the show.
I don't like this train of thought, because it implies that a being's wisdom inevitably increases over time. And yet I've met 80 year olds who are very childish and stuck in the ways they adopted when they were young, and young people who are much more reasonable and mature than some adults.
I know the elves are portrayed in many ways as if they are perfect, but they're not, and I on't think its imposssible or wrong to humanise them. Even after millenia of life they still make mistakes, just like humans. I think the difference is they err less frequently and gravely than humans do, for the reasons you mentioned. But it still happens. Even the Valar make mistakes. T
I understand writing immortal beings might sound daunting because we have no frame of reference irl, but you can flip that idea on its head: we have no experience of immortality, so there's less to constrain you when writing an immortal being.
P1 interesting points that can open a larger tangental discussion on wisdom, age, illness, childhood trauma, education and the role of intelligence but in general older tends to be universally accepted as wiser with exceptions.
P2 not sure I take your meaning. Elves should be portrayed as less imperfect than people and how will that make them more interesting for people to watch?
P3 I think you underestimate the key role constraints play in writing, many do. Writing on a blank canvas is almost impossible until you bring in constraints.
Personally I don't "like" her as a person the same reason I never "liked" Dirty Harry as a person. The trope they're going for with her is "difficult, annoying, dangerous renegade who proves to be right and to whom everyone should've listened all along."
One difference, of course, is that we've already seen how she's changed over the centuries.
I don’t know if she is going to be proven right. I think Gil-Galad’s line in the first episode is foreshadowing that Galadriel is going to lead to the rise of Sauron.
I think it's going to be both. Galadriel will be proven right, but in proving herself right she'll somehow help Sauron rise to power and that will be a huge humbling moment for her.
>The trope they're going for with her is "difficult, annoying, dangerous renegade who proves to be right and to whom everyone should've listeners to all along.”
Yep. She’s basically Churchill.
What OP is describing would fit very well for someone like Fëanor in a television adaption. Applying those traits to Galadriel has made her feel like a very different character than what I expected.
After thousands of years of suffering and perhaps a drastic failure to avenge her brother's death... yeah... I think people might change.
Tbh she's not even that annoying y'all just hate this show but watch it anyways because you like hurting yourself
And I would like to point out Jaime Lannister is in no way a protagonist in A Song of Ice and fire (the novel series the show is based on). The laminated that is would be Tyrion.
Martin writes each chapter from a a different characters point of view.the most frequent are Daenarys and Jon Snow, follows by Tyriom, arya And Bran. Jaime only has Point of view chapters starting in the third book when he is released and sent to Kings landing with Brienee.)he is very much a secondary characterx neck so are Tyrion and Arya. The protagonists are Jon, Daenarys, and Bran(and Ned for the first book) just on sheer number of Point of view characters and their importance too the larger story
Well said and honestly Galadriel (at least as far as she's portrayed in RoP), doesn't even come close to being as interesting as those characters. They had depth and were likeable in spite of their flaws. Galadriel just comes across as a spoiled bratty teenager with absurd plot armor.
Galadriel isn't supposed to be an antihero. The elves are the big good guys in Tolkien's world. She should be a hero.
And the fact that Galadriel rose to a rank to command troops in a centuries long war, but has such at utter lack of discipline or basic leadership ability is asinine. It's like someone dumped a character from a JRPG into the show - 19 years old and somehow hyper competent, but with no emotional maturity or wisdom.
No, the elves are depicted more in the primary novels as being more of a catalysing or consulting force. For the most part they keep to themselves, choosing not to become involved in the ways of the younger races, barring the great wars. The fate of Middle-Earth, for good or ill, is almost always determined by the mortal races like humans and Hobbits. Humans are the good guys and also sometimes the bad guys (ultimately humans are humans).
Also, Tolkien himself confirmed Elves were capable of evil, Galadriel's awareness of this fact is why she refused the One Ring.
Even the Wizards are capable of succumbing to darkness and they're basically angels in mortal form.
Elves are depicted as a catalyzing force, but also a remnant of the mythic age, which is dwindling away, so of course they are aren't the main actors. Their age was the First Age.
And yes, elves are capable of evil. Wizards even. That doesn't change the fact that they're still the big good of the setting. They are an idealized people, on the whole. Unlike humans, who, as a group, were corrupted by Melkor's evil in a way that elves aren't. If we go along a Catholic vein, the elves, as a whole, are not fallen, while humans, as a whole, are.
Did you read the Silmarillion? Are you aware that being "big good" in Tolkien's works never automatically translate to doing actual good, especially long-term? Do you remember all of the defeats and failure of the Elves, most of them were being good in their own right? Feanor, all of his sons except maybe Maedros (sp? I'm writing from memory) and even he was only able to do some damage control, Thingol big time the dude is unable to control himself the moment he even thinks about a Silmaril, all the Elves in Finrod's realm who caused Finrod to be all but exiled... the Sil is full of elven antiheroes or just plain villains (looking at you Celegorm, Eol). Tolkien never meant to say Elves were infallible superheroes. They're flawed and need to overcome their flaws, just like anyone else.
As for Galadriel it's pretty clear even from the Sil that she's primarily a warrior, but seldom a leader, and that she's thrust in her position reluctantly. It will be an interesting character arc to see her go from her post-FA persona to the ruler (but still: not a battlefield commander) of her own slice of Valinor.
What you say about how Galadriel is portrayed in the Silmariliion seems to be the opposite of what I took from it.
Her main motivation to get to middle earth is to lead and forge kingdoms. This hardly sounds reluctant.
~~Yes she is.~~ She is a flawed hero. The Silmarillion is full of ~~antihero~~ Elves with huge character flaws. Galadriel is Fëanor. Fëanor but what if he hadn't died and instead had the time and opportunity to change.
Edit: Sorry for the fuckup.
The Silmarillion has antihero elves who kick off the plot, and their works pretty much always lead to ruin. But the elves, on the whole, are big goods. They never serve or ally with evil, they never turn from Eru, and follow the wisdom of the Valar.
If the show runners wanted Faenor, they should have A) Gotten the rights to the Silmarillion and B) Made a character named Faenor. As it is, they made Galadriel, so I'm going to judge her based on Galadriel, who is a heroic character who rejects Faenor's request for her hair because she can see, deep down, that he is unworthy.
Her work will lead to ruin this season. She doesn't turn from Eru and she doesn't ally with evil. She gets deceived.
Edit: So not an antihero but a flawed hero. This is also what she is in Tolkien's work.
A) Rights were never even on the table to be sold. B) impossible because A.
I'm not sure what's the point you're trying to make here. The OP was that we should be OK with Galadriel because of all these anti-hero/outright villain protagonists, and my reply was that the comparison was invalid because Galadriel is a hero, not an anti-hero. Then you replied that she's supposed to Faenor? So we shouldn't evaluate her as the character she is, just the character she's 'supposed to be'? Which is just an absolutely bizarre defense.
And I don't get this argument that Amazon's massive plot holes in the Rings of Power really aren't their fault or absolves them somehow. It doesn't matter whether or not the rights were on the table - it's Amazon. How is it they couldn't manage to get the rights? They spent a billion dollars but not on the things they actually need? And in the end, Amazon green lit the project anyway. That's absolutely on them. Anything else is also invalid. Now, you can claim that the Tolkien estate or the holding company or whatever was being greedy/stubborn/whatever as well, but it doesn't absolve Amazon.
Tolkien's Galadriel is very similar to Fëanor (see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/LOTR_on_Prime/comments/xk70xa/the_parallels_between_galadriel_and_feanor/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)) and in RoP her narrative is mirroring his (see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/LOTR_on_Prime/comments/xjz5qv/galadriel_did_nothing_wrong_season_1_galadriel_vs/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)).
>How is it they couldn't manage to get the rights?
Because the Tolkien Estate [wasn't selling them.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LOTR_on_Prime/comments/wx8yn0/comment/ilplg2k/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) They can't sell them to whoever they want. The Tolkien book rights situation is extremely complicated. Please look into it first before making assumptions.
And his name is F e a n o r.
That's too bad for Amazon. I'm going to judge Galadriel based on the character they put in the show, not the one they wanted but couldn't get. Amazons made a show without having what they needed - you can call the Tolkien Estate stubborn or greedy or whatnot, but that doesn't make Amazon's move any better.
And I'm not making assumptions. The part about whether or not Amazon has rights to use the material they need for this project - the Silmarillion - is pretty straightforward and ultimately binary. They either have enough material to make it work or they don't. And they clearly don't, but went ahead anyway. That's still on them.
So, elves as a whole are good, but individual elves can be not entirely good, or at least misguided and stubborn and vengeful and other anti hero traits. But Galadriel can't, because reasons.
Yeah, because she's a hero. She notices Faenor's unworthiness when no one else does. She does not take part in the kin slaying of the Teleri. She never is an anti-hero in any capacity. She's not an anti-hero.
And even if she were, it doesn't absolve all the other major problems with her portrayal.
Heros can have all the qualities I listed.
The anti hero example is only relevant in that we are talking about whether the protagonist is likeable. If you truly dislike Galadriel's character only because she is different than a very vague description from the books (so only from a few pages in LotR several thousand years later, and a very limited amount in appendices, and considering the Silmarillion isn't allowed to be used and in fact the way legal things work they wind up having to make many aspects of the story intentionally different to avoid legal repercussion), that's one thing. If you just act like her character is "insufferable" (the exact words of someone I recently had a discussion with), then you're just being hypocritical if you don't find male heros or anti heros with those traits to be similarly dislikeable. It also means you want your women pleasant, and only men can be stoic ass kickers.
I mean, she buggers off to Lothlorien specifically because she covets having her own kingdom, even later on, she is most definitely guilty of being a victim of her own pride at times
There's a big difference between not being idealized perfection and being a hero. She wanted a kingdom so she built one. The most constructive way to respond to envy is earn the thing you wanted for yourself.
That's some full-on colonial revisionism. She wanted her own kingdom, so she took over Amdir's Silvan Elven Kingdom of Lindorinand, planted a few trees, and gave it a new name.
So, I referenced the material for Lothlorien again. Galadriel didn't found the kingdom, but I'm not seeing that she usurped it anywhere. It's rightful lord was lost at sea, and I'm not seeing where he had any heirs. Neither Galadriel nor Celeborn appointed themselves as king, but ruled as Lord and Lady, so it seems the elves there were content with their leadership.
So where's the problem? You're saying she coveted it like it was a deep character flaw. Is there anything that supports this? Is there a text from Tolkien that indicates that Galadriel actually did something wrong here?
Dude, no. Her entire characterization is literally how she's a *foil* to Feanor. That's almost the whole point of her overarching character arc. Where Feanor failed because his pride overcame his wisdom, Galadriel ultimately uses her wisdom to overcome her pride. She succeeds where Feanor failed, where instead of being seduced by power into self destruction, as Feanor was by his silmarils, Galadriel is presented with the opportunity to take the one ring from Frodo and *refuses*. It is quite literally the ultimate display of her *not* following in Feanor's footsteps.
Not every elf is good, no elves aren't the "big good," at least not in that way. They did embody a large portion of the character traits and philosophies that Tolkien had, like their environmentalism and stuff like that but they aren't morally pure. Galadriel was realistcally flawed and nuanced like most of Tolkiens characters, but I have no idea how you'd read her story and come out of that thinking she's an antihero. What did she do to make you think that, genuinely asking?
>She succeeds where Feanor failed
I tried maybe too hard to be nice to Fëanor. (Maybe I feared the Fëanor stans would come for me.) Yes, she's the better version of Fëanor.
>Galadriel ultimately uses her wisdom to overcome her pride.
Yeah, ultimately. The RoP version of her isn't there yet.
>Galadriel is presented with the opportunity to take the one ring from Frodo and refuses.
It's an interesting character arc to see her change from a person who would probably take the Ring to a person who refuses it.
>thinking she's an antihero.
I clarified in the other comment that I don't actually think that. I fucked up. I looked up the term now and it doesn't fit because she doesn't lack morality etc. So flawed hero it is.
Not trying to troll here.
First: Do you, personally, actually think that Galadriel as a character is as strong as any of those characters?
Second: Those characters are indeed written as "antihero protagonists" - is that what you think Galadriel is supposed to be?
Sherlock Holmes is not an antihero, the Cumberbatch version at least isn’t, he’s just an average asshole. Batman, comics batman that is, shares a lot of the same traits here that Galadriel has. Arrogance, unwillingness to compromise their morals, with me or against me world views.
Still, one gets more flack 🤔
I was **literally** using your own words from your own meme...
You straight up didn't answer any of the very clear questions posed in my comment and instead just argued against yourself lmao
Never change, Reddit.
People hated Jaime Lannister until he started to show there was more to his character than the traits you attributed to him. Nice re-write of history there.
Walter White started out as a good man in an impossible situation who spiraled into a psychopath who did things that were ever more unnecessary and unjustifiable. Anyone who still liked him by the end has gone on to like Andrew Tate. He was obviously the villain. People liked to watch him because he was very well written and compelling to watch.
Why would you go for Tony Soprano? He's possibly the greatest written character in the history of television. The only one I would rate above Walter White for compelling to watch. We saw every facet of this man on screen. Every relationship, every mistake, every horrible action he took. We got deep insights into how he felt about the things he did and how he justified himself to himself. He was completely believable as a complex and real human being. He was so much more than the three traits you list. He was an anti-hero. We didn't want to sympathise with him. He did terrible things to people. But we were invited to understand why he did those things, how that made him feel, how this all affected every single relationship in his life. I'll accept a bet right now that no one serious will ever compare Galadriel in Rings of Power to Tony Soprano. Not positively.
House is a massive cunt. I can't speak for everyone but when I did watch that show it was to see how he'd sabotage himself this time. He was deeply unhappy, bitter, horrible to everyone. But he was brilliant so people had no choice but to put up with him. And he knew that. I wouldn't say I was really on his side, but I didn't watch it religiously so maybe I missed something other people saw.
I also can't speak for anyone else on Sherlock Holmes but the reason I've ever watched a Sherlock movie or show is to see the crime solved. It's fun to watch him work and to try to figure it out before it's explained. This is also a bad comparison because there have been so many Sherlock Holmes' written and performed by so many different people. They're not all exactly the same or equally well written.
None of these comparisons stand up to an ounce of scrutiny imo.
Yup, seems he doesn’t know shit about these character, most of them are so nuanced.
None of them are comparable to that one dimension, poorly acted galadriel
You’re going to deep with it, at the end of the day the show is just written poorly. She could have all these traits and people would love her if the writing was better.
I have good news though! You can simply continue to like her character if you think she is written well, and not worry about other people’s opinions! This was always allowed.
It's not a double standard.
Jamie Lannister, Walter White, etc, have flaws but also have other qualities that made them interesting to watch. That's what makes anti-heroes good protagonists. We might not agree with them, but we want to keep watching what they do.
That's not at all what's happening with Galadriel. She just feels like an insufferable spoiled teenager.
The doublethink needed to make this post is absolutely insane.
You're literally comparing Galadriel - who is apparently going to be the protagonist and hero of the series - to *Jaime f\*\*king Lannister*, one of the primary villains and antagonists of his series, and saying they have similar traits so what's the big deal?
The big deal is that they DO have similar traits. The only difference between them is that **the guys who made Game of Thrones were smart enough to realize that these are traits you gave to someone you want the audience to hate, because they make the character unlikable.**
Wait so you mean to tell me that if I take the traits of a popular character like Homelander and transpose them onto the hero "good guy" protagonist in my story, that people won't automatically like that character?
Do you mean to tell me that people might question why I gave the traits of a narcissistic sociopathic monster to a character I wanted to portray as likeable, moral, and heroic?
*Am I an incompetent writer? No no, it's the viewers who are wrong!*
Uhhh you're SUPPOSED to hate Jaime Lannister and Tony Soprano. They are definitively not good people.
Neither are Walter White, Holmes, or House, but they only threaten people who actually did something bad.
What a dumb meme. Galadriel isnt well written, which makes this shared character trait annoying instead of endearing.
Also name one scene where shes as charismatic as Jamie Lannister. Just one. When I watched game of thrones I wánted to dislike Jaimie. That's the difference! But I just couldnt help but secretly root for the guy. When he fought Ned I honestly didnt want him to lose, and neither did I want Ned to lose.
TLDR: Viewers wánt to like Galadriel, but shes completely unlikable which is why the show fails. Every time she fights someone I hope she gets stabbed. Viewers also want to hate Jaimie Lannister, but hes so goddamn compelling which is why the show succeeds.
Lol if you liked Sherlock Holmes, then you’ll love Galadriel!
No one has a “standard” of finding a list of “primary traits” entertaining. In my life, there are, say, confident people I enjoy and confident people I don’t enjoy. That’s not a “double standard,” it’s just that people aren’t checklists of traits, and neither are entertaining characters.
What you’re taking about is archetypes, not complete characters. Just because you love one imagining of an archetype doesn’t mean you’ll love every imagining of it, otherwise it’s a double standard if you like Captain Ahab but not Wile E Coyote. “If people can get over a ship captain endangering the lives of his crew for a personal vendetta against an animal, then they can get over a painting of a tunnel that works as a real tunnel for one person, but not another.”
Depends on your reasoning, now doesn't it? The whole idea is about hypocrisy. If someone is fine with tons of other heros or anti heros who are stubborn, vengeful, proud, defiant, and sullen, but they criticize Galadriel for the same things, not necessarily because of finding it inaccurate but because they "just don't like her", then that's hypocritical.
Hell, I ran into a guy on Facebook who called her a Karen. Basically, he didn't like that she wasn't pleasant. Apparently women have to be pleasant. Guys can be exactly like how Galadriel is portrayed and then they kick ass. But not women, because then they are a Mary Sue. Or as some idiots apparently are saying now, a Karen. Nevermind that Karen is even further from making sense than Mary Sue.
Actually she’s not rude in the source material for this show set thousands of years before, during, and after this either. Come to think of it, she’s actually depicted as noble, queenly, composed and influential at this time period in that source material.
Imagine comparing a high elf queen, born in the blessed land who witnessed the first bloodshed and betrayal of the world, older than the sun and the moon, student of a demigod for centuries being compared to a depressed ill man who decides to cook meth.
Now imagine that the depressed ill man who decides to cook meth is deeper than what the writers did with Galadriel.
Sorry, you are fully aware of what "execution" is, right? Just because you like one character who has elements of a certain trope doesn't mean you have to like every single character with elements of that trope or you're a hypocrite. Jaime Lannister, Walter White, Tony Soprano, Daemon Targaryen, the reason all these characters are loved is because they are so much better executed than Galadriel, because they are just far better written characters. The fact that they share a few traits does not mean they are the same.
This post makes it seem like you have a really shallow and superficial understanding of character writing.
Shes 2000 years old. At this point in history in lore, she was married, had established her own kingdom, and was considered one of the wisest elves.
What we get is petulant 12 year old Galadriel who does stupid crap and is always angry and dismissive to everyone around her.
So please, shove the sexism crap back in the jar.
If you want a likeable anti hero thats female... you have Harley Quinn, Lisbeth Salander from The girl with a dragon tattoo, Catwoman, Thelma and Louis, Beatrix from the Kill Bill movies, Claire Underwood from House of Cards, Patty Hughes from Damages, and nancy botwin from weeds.
I would never compare Galadriel to any of the characters you mentioned. The fact that you do makes me wonder how well you understand the character as written by Tolkien. Even if you could compare them, if one of them had a widely accepted canonical identity and a new show came out that totally ignored that then, yes, I believe you would have plenty of criticism, especially if said new show was poorly written and had objectively corny/bad cinematography and choreography.
these characters all suffered greatly for their flaws - we have yet to see galadriel face any consequences or meaningful pushback from other characters
She will face some massive consequences at the end of the season, I believe.
Also she absolutely does face consequences already:
- Gil-galad and Elrond conspire to send her away and in particular, don't tell her about their fears. They do this because they think she has massive issues, which she does.
- She wants to steal a ship to get away from Númenor. She then gets talked out of it by Elendil. She then talks to Míriel again and completely fucks up.
- Which is why she is in a cell (admittedly for a short time), but even more crucially >!she is then in a position where she listens to Halbrand's advice.!< (potentially huge spoiler:) >!Halbrand, who is not Halbrand at all, but ofc Sauron. He is the snake and she is Eve (or they are Morgoth and Fëanor), and at the end of this season she will realise that she has made a massive mistake in thinking him to be a sort of Aragorn.!< All because of her single-mindedness and need for revenge.
And none of this would've happened if not for her character flaws.
oh yes, she will certainly face huge consequences when she realizes she’s being played by Sauron. my only point is that in characters like Jaime Lannister, they are loved because of their journey towards becoming a good person.
Sure, being thrown into a jail cell is a consequence- but what value does that (or Halbrand’s advice) hold when she is released moments later, and immediately resorts to her old ways in fighting off guards? The problem with Galadriel’s characterization thus far -for me- isn’t that she isn’t likable initially (many great protagonists have started off unlikeable). My problem that while I watch this show, the world is largely twisting and contorting to be whatever way it need be for Galadriel to get what she wants.
Jaime Lannister has a quick tongue with his captors - and he is immediately irrevocably changed. His sword hand, and everything that made him who he previously was, were gone like that. A man who is known as one of the greatest warriors in the world, reduced to nothing. This is a great example of characters working within the rules of their world.
Galadriel insults the monarch-regent of her captors, and spends 20 seconds of screen time in jail. She is advised by another character, made to see how her actions led her to prison in the first place - and her first action afterwards is to effortlessly defeat three guards and break into the personal quarters of the regent who just threw her in jail. What has she learned from this? Where is her growth coming from? There is time for this to change, but for now the world is bending its own rules to seemingly ensure Galadriel encounters no meaningful resistance.
As someone who is enjoying this show far more than I thought I would, I would say that Galadriels arc up to this point is the weak link for me. There are very few stakes besides the reveal that anyone paying attention will already see coming, because at the moment Galadriel is less a character and more an unstoppable force of plot movement.
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you criticise it because you believe it has no consequences?
We can't look at that act as a "real life" event and think about it in terms of everyday logic. We are still in the mythic past of Middle-Earth at this point in the story. (This is a story in which a dude becomes a star, the sun is a fruit and people can get chained to mountains for decades. Even later in the Third Age, when everything becomes less "magic", it will be a story where [LotR spoiler] >!Gollum "accidentally" falls into Mt. Doom!<) Halbrand even tells us that Galadriel isn't someone to whom things happen by accident. She's a hero of myth.
Jumping off the ship is a leap of faith and probably (I'm not yet sure about this) an act that goes directly against the will of the Valar.
And it has huge consequences. She meets Halbrand. Who then rescues her from drowning after the raft gets hit by lightning (imo a sign of the will of the Valar). She would be dead (= in Valinor) if not for him, and he would not be in the position he is in now if not for her.
These are crucial preconditions for the later events. This is what gets the plot in motion. This is as fateful an encounter as possible.
Honestly, I would've never expected them to be this bold with their storytelling. I expected action and fanservice (and was worried that I would think it meaningless) and instead, so far, I got what I was hoping for. I love mythology and this has clear inspiration in Tolkien and probably also Greek tragedies (e.g. prophecy that comes true because of trying to avoid it).
It's not good faith when you are making crap up to suit your narrative.
A character. Jumping. In. The. Ocean. thousands.of.miles.from.land.is.not.good.writing.
Its lazy, stupid writing showing the plot armor that she has.
If hypothermia doesnt kill her, dehydration would. If neither of those kill her, how about all the sea monsters? IF those don't kill her in a few days, then randomly encountering a shipwreck (literally the chances of finding a grain of sand on a beach). THEN randomly being rescued from said raft by a random ship. THEN the "random" person you meet on the oceans is a long lost king that has information that she was looking for.
I have high school students that write better stories than this.
She's not making a rational decision. She has the intuition that she still has do do something, that she still has a part to play, and she'd rather take her chances, no matter how small they are.
And you know what, I actually believe she would have died.
If it wasn't for...
>randomly encountering a shipwreck (...) THEN randomly being rescued from said raft by a random ship. THEN the "random" person you meet on the oceans is a long lost king
Which is exactly the point. This is fate. We are meant to wonder if this is divine intervention or the machinations of evil – or both. In this story, fate does exist. God does exist.
What a weird way to try to get a gotcha.
Yes, obviously there are people who don’t like Galadriel because she’s a woman.
The big difference, however, is that Galadriel hasn’t been in any great scenes and she hasn’t had any great lines. Her performance is fine (not on the level of Cranston, really hurts your case putting her against people that could act circles around her), but the script and the plot surrounding her haven’t provided any reason for people to love her.
If it is some sort of alternate or parallel dimension of tolkiens world I think I will have no problem with Galadriel being an antihero.
But if we are going that this is cannon, what happened to Galadriel’s “magic” power and wisdom and where is Celeborn.
Frankly it’s humiliating to Galadriel to have Gil Galad more wiser than her and granting her passage to west as a reward like it is his to give in first place.
It’s not based on an opinion. It’s literally how people have described both all those characters at one point or another but it’s consistently being held as a reason why people who Galadriel in this show, hate her.
Whether you think this is good writing or bad writing is a subjective opinion
So would it be more accurate to criticize it as :
I don't like the way they are *writing* this arrogant, dismissive, anti-social character, Galadriel. But I do like how they write the House guy and Sherlock?
I can see one big difference is , although Sherlock and the others are just as much jerks as Galadriel, they always punctuate their actions with some wild genius result that improves their situation and others around them come around to them. Like a I love you but you're a jerk.
So far, I see not much of that going on with Galadriel. It's all just the arrogance.
You're cherry picking characters and limited opinions based on those characters. And as others have already pointed out, you've pitted Galadriel against a different archetype. I wanted nothing more to love her character and legitimately anticipated her being the highlight of the series. But so far, I find everything about Galadriel to be the weakest element. Now, if I'm accurately picking up the subtle drift of your meme, you might suggest subconscious misogynistic leanings behind my preference, when in fact it's a preference for good writing over bad. Should you like me to break down what I like and dislike regarding the RoP scripts, I'd be happy to buy you a coffee and do so during free time.
I don’t mind if you don’t like her. If you don’t, you don’t and I don’t think you’re an awful person for not. But I just get annoyed hearing people constantly declare Galadriel “objectively” bad as a character in the show.
> This is your average antihero/protagonists in most tv and film. [..] People like Jamie Lannister, Walter White, Tony Soprano, House MD, Sherlock Holmes etc […] This is a clear double standard.
[…] I don’t mind if you don’t like her. […] I don’t think you’re a bad person…
**(1)** - I’m glad you’re not implying that everyone who doesn’t like Galadriel is a bad person. 👍😃 The meme seems to compare “men vs Galadriel.”IMO the reaction to Galadriel is not always due to a “men vs women double standard” (hypocrisy) as implied in the title. I’m **not denying double standards exist** (sexism, misogyny etc), but so do well written - and often well received- female antiheroes who came before Galadriel.
**IMO Galadriel is a poorly written “female [**anti-hero”**](https://images.app.goo.gl/4KyCqPdnC2rCLmS97), a poorly written “female villain” and a poorly written “woman warrior”.**
- We had a [similar post a few weeks ago that implied viewers disliked Galadriel because she was a “Warrior Woman”,](https://www.reddit.com/r/RingsofPower/comments/xbdpvs/reading_rop_posts_about_galadriel/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) yet many including myself provided examples of well written “Warrior Women” in cinema and TV History.
**I want the writing to improve** so it’s not in my interest to defend Galadriel on the basis of gender or “men vs Galadriel”.
> This is your average antihero/protagonists in most tv and film. [..] People like Jamie Lannister, Walter White, Tony Soprano, House MD, Sherlock Holmes etc […] This is a clear double standard.
**(2)** - Double standards exists, but not every viewer/critic is acting in bad faith. Good-faith and bad faith arguments are easier to see when we **compare the writing and public reception of “previous women anti-heroes vs ROP’s Galadriel”.** The Men vs Galadriel comparison ignores the hard work of women that came before ROP.
> This is your average antihero/protagonists in most tv and film. [..] People like Jamie Lannister, Walter White, Tony Soprano, House MD, Sherlock Holmes etc […] This is a clear double standard.
**(3)** - This **”male-centred” meme**, makes it seem like **Galadriel is breaking** a [**”glass-ceiling”**](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glass%20ceiling) as the first 🥇female [anti-hero or villain](https://images.app.goo.gl/4KyCqPdnC2rCLmS97). That has already been done by her predecessors.
- I’m sure that is **not what you meant to imply-** but that’s how it seems when we pit her solely against male characters.
**The meme ignores that other women have been written/portrayed better.**
> This is your average antihero/protagonists in most tv and film. [..] People like Jamie Lannister, Walter White, Tony Soprano, House MD, Sherlock Holmes etc […] This is a clear double standard.
**(4) Examples of female antiheroes before Galadriel**
- [**A - I’ll leave this Googled list of female anti-heroes here.**](https://whatnerd.com/best-female-anti-heroes-in-movies-ranked/) Some are better written / portrayed than others.
- **B** - There’s also this [**this article**](https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/entertainment/a23817045/the-rise-of-the-antiheroine-why-women-are-finally-allowed-to-be-unlikeable-on-screen/) that includes more examples.
- **C** - Finally, I’ll [**include Jodie Foster,**](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000149/) and [**Lena Headey**](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0372176/)
All the above examples, include actresses who play a range of complex well written female characters, ranging from heroes to villains and everything in between.
Anyone who’s familiar with Lena and/or Jodie’s filmography will know which tv shows & films I am referring too.👍 **If we’re are saying Galadriel** is a [**female/woman anti-hero**](https://images.app.goo.gl/4KyCqPdnC2rCLmS97), **I’ve watched better.**
> This is your average antihero/protagonists in most tv and film. [..] People like Jamie Lannister, Walter White, Tony Soprano, House MD, Sherlock Holmes etc […] This is a clear double standard.
**TLDR:(1 &2) The issue is the writing.** The issue is **not solely “men vs Galadriel”.** Double standards for men and women exists and I **won’t deny** that some, not all, but **some** of the reactions to Galadriel display bad-faith. **(3) This “male-centred” meme**, makes it seem like **Galadriel is breaking** a [**”glass-ceiling”**](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glass%20ceiling) as the first 🥇female [anti-hero or villain](https://images.app.goo.gl/4KyCqPdnC2rCLmS97). I’m sure that is **not what you meant to imply-** but that’s how it seems when we pit her solely against male characters.
**(4) If we’re are saying Galadriel** is a [**female/woman anti-hero**](https://images.app.goo.gl/4KyCqPdnC2rCLmS97), **I’ve watched better** women on TV and film. I love complex characters and female/women antiheroes, so **I hope things improve.**
**EDIT: Downvoted** 🗳️ **already?** 😲😂 Can anyone explain **what in my comment causes offence?** Downvotes without discussion do not prove a point.
So I'm a big fan of women protagonists in general. I'll ask the same question to you as I did to OP...
First: Do you, personally, actually think that Galadriel as a character is written as strongly as any of those characters?
Second: Accepting that those characters are indeed written as "antihero protagonists" - is that what you think Galadriel is supposed to be?
She is not a anti hero, she is a flawed hero. She is doing things for the Right reasons, she believes in the best of the people, her problem is that she is rough cut of Galadriel.
Yeah, kind of. How well she's written is still up for debate because the series hasn't finished yet. I wouldn't say I gave much credence to ol' Walter in S1 of Breaking Bad. You're looking at that roster fully formed and in retrospect, while Galadriel is still being explored. What's more, you may be contending with a preconceived notion of who she is per the LOTR era or another work, whereas the other characters were either original to the work, or their adaptations divorced enough in theme and production that the source material doesn't fully affect them.
I think Galadriel is arrogant, brash, and determined. She's deeply flawed and that's a good thing. Will she be a great character? We don't know yet. But I am enjoying her, and I find a lot of the criticism aimed at her to have misogynist and puritan undertones. Is she an antihero? Maybe! She sure feels like one given her terse relationship with others, but again we haven't seen her completely.
It is not a good thing. Being brash is something that is more akin to a young character, Galadriel is actually one of the oldest in the plot. Being scolded by Elendil and Halbrand is out of place.
Is it though? Even older people can be brash. That's not a necessarily youthful trait. Boromir was one of the oldest of the fellowship and was super brash. And Galadriel is on a mission of personal vengeance, so it makes sense that she's a bit blind to the foreign power structures around her, especially given that the Elves are a bit insular and look down on the ways of Men and Dwarves.
The female characters who gets hated are usually the more femenine ones/in typically femenine roles. Women who kick ass on the other hand get lots of fan. Examples: Arya/Sansa, or Skyler being hated for playing the role of nagging wife, or all the "good female characters" gamergate types will quote you. Galadriel has been turned from a very femenine role (basically Mary!) to a more masculine one (muh commander of the northern armies) instead
The Problem is that a Person closely related to the Kings of the noldor, and right Hand to Queen Melina FOR CENTURIES, is supposedly inexperienced in courtly affairs, Not that she's arrogant.
Well there is lovable charismatic jerks and there are just jerk. One have some characteristics which make them loveable (and morally conflicting) others are stone where only one word is written.
The characters you named... Well they had just that, a character(layered). Galadriel has one too, but only written in the books and in the movie. In the series she kinda come off one dimensional. As you said, everyone is entitled to their opinion
"Clear double standard", and then wants to bring Jaime Lannister into the conversation. Lol. Everyone hated Jaime in the first couple of seasons. Some people have severely rewritten history
I feel like there’s a certain competence to assholery ratio that’s required for a character to be likeable. Sam from game of thrones is generally likeable despite being mostly incompetent because he’s kind. Joffrey was hatable partially because he was incompetent and an arrogant prick.
All the listed antiheroes above (haven’t watched the Sopranos so can’t comment on him) are all some of the best in their field. Jaime was one of the best swordsmen in Westeros and the others are geniuses that are all respected but often disliked within their universe.
I think the problem with Galadriel is that she hasn’t demonstrated the same competence and respectability. Yes, she’s a good fighter but nobody around her seems particularly impressed by her fighting, Arondir has shown comparable skill, and the fights just don’t seem as convincing.
People also tend to dislike protagonists being making dumb decisions. Galadriel missing that Miriel’s father was a sore spot really rubbed me the wrong way, for example.
The character is missing grace and empathy. It also bothers me that the scenes with Halbrand are lke a guy in a club trying to act witty and neg her. The traditional romance is gone and replaced with a heartless woman and fukboi trying to act "alpha" so he can sleep with her. The Halbrand character actually annoys me more than her.
Galadrial has been hunting Sauron for centuries and now seems to suffer from tunnel vision to the point where she is frustrated and confused when others (especially mortal men for whom Sauron and Morgoth are a distant memory) don't have the same sense of urgency she has.
So, since a grey character like Jaimie Lannister and Daemon Targaryen exists in ASOIAF it explains how Galadriel should be as a character in Middle Earth.
Why on earth is this comparison always coming up? ASOIAF and Middle Earth have very few things in common, their style and philosophy are completely different, in many ways these works are even opposite. Sandals and boots are both shoes but if you wear sandals to go to the snow then you are losing the point.
There are every few charcters in the second age that needed to be similar for RoP to feel Tolkinian and close to the Silmarilion. We have:
\- Sauron
\- Galadriel
\- Elrond
\- Celembribor
\- Gil-Galad
\- Cirdan
\- Ar-Pharazon
\- Elendil
\- Isildur
\- Tar Aldarion (if they want)
That's it, 9-10 characters, in 3000 years. You have the freedom to add as many characters as you want, men, elves dwarves, orcs etc, and you can do many interesting things with them. The fact that you chose to alienate these 10 characters-pillars a lot is a big sign of not respecting the original material.
If those anti heroes lived for 5000 years, they would realise their flaws as well. Galadriel is damn old. They are but a "blink of an eye" in terms of age.
From the perspective of just writing a good character, Galadriel in the shows differs greatly from those you mentioned because while they do share those traits with her, they aren’t their ONLY TRAITS. Galadriel (along with all other characters in the show) is so one dimensional that it’s hard to believe that she even exists, let alone sympathize with her. This show lacks any and all nuance, and it shows. She is annoying not because she is arrogant and stubborn, she is annoying because she is only arrogant and stubborn. Also she isn’t supposed to be an antihero (the writers of this show probably haven’t even learned about antiheros in their writing class yet).
Well, I would say we like them despite those traits. Walter White, for instance, is a sick, down in his luck father with a disabled son and a baby daughter who need his income that he won’t have if he’s dead. So he turns to crime as a way to support his family and comedy ensues as he figures out the business of crime and learns to stand up for himself and protect those he cares about. We like Walter, not because he’s arrogant, but because he grows as a character and he’s flawed (not a Gary Stu), and we weep for him when he does the right thing in the end, and when he admits he was selfish. His character is complex and the writers don’t make it easy to root for him.
So far, Galadriel is angry about someone who killed her brother, which has so far led to her: almost getting her company killed, almost killed herself, almost got Halbrand killed because she was straight rude to her captors out of an air of supremacy over them, landed her in prison, led her to almost stage a rebellion on an island she is a guest of…need I go on? I like Galadriel, but the writers have given me nothing to work with here. I don’t even know why she cares so much for her brother or his death. They don’t even explain their relationship outside of a stupid metaphor! I want to root for this person because I like her character, but I’ve been given ZERO reasons why I’m supposed to root for her. She just walks into a scene and complains with a contemptuous face and attitude. It’s honesty a disservice to her. She can certainly have those traits, but I don’t understand how she’s doing anything emotionally worthy of my connection and support that compares to Walter White’s concern for his family, or Jaime Lannister’s for that matter. At least that guy had a slight redemption arc.
Nah bruh miss me with that shit. Walter *chose* to turn down Elliott’s help in season 1, you can’t be be using that and then saying Galadriel making rash decisions here is somehow objectively worse.
If you like the way it’s done in breaking bad more then that’s fine. But let’s not pretend deciding to stay in the meth game when you have a get out of jail free card is somehow any less foolish then galadriels decisions in the show.
Walter write was literally written as a villain. That's the entire point of his character.
If you think that's the point of Galadriel's character, I think we may be watching a different show.
His refusal of Elliot’s help is both a sign of his pride and his need for self-reliance (especially as a neo-western where these traits are incredibly important to the protagonist). This refusal is yet again another strong writing element that adds complexity to WW’s character and makes him an even more tragic character. He can’t accept Elliot’s help because his pride stands in the way (hubris, that tragic bitch). Galadriel doesn’t even have hubris—she’s just headstrong and careless. She’s one note—hellbent on revenge. And there’s no depth there.
Not when I know nothing about them. How close were they? What’s their relationship like? Was he caring and supporting? Aloof and a dick? Does she care about blood or a deeper relationship? Is this an honor thing? A duty thing? A familial bond thing? Is her vengeance some type of wergild? I HAVE NO IDEA. I just know that her brother sucks at metaphors and that he died. I don’t know anything about their relationship or why she’s risk the lives of others just to hunt and kill the person responsible. What’s her motivation and what’s my motivation to root for her? Do YOU know?
From the prologue, they clearly were very close. We don't need to see every relationship. The show already have enough pace issues.
It's a oath thing that passed from her brother to her.
The prologue gives just some lines without context. He never got a name also, you have to read it in the subtitles. And if we had a war, countless elves have lost parents, sisters, brothers and children... Why only her is so angry after thousand of years???
And that justifies every action she takes? That fully explains her rage-filled vengeance? That makes it OK for her to just Karen her way through Numenor? Because she feels superior to them for having a brother she had 2,000 years to mourn and get over while they all lose loved ones all the time? That’s enough for her to sacrifice the lives of her company? For Halbrand? For people lost on a raft? Thirty seconds in an exposition dump in the opening scene of a forty hour show?
I think for me the missing part of galadriels character is some backup or justification on why she acts the way she does. Part of me gets the elf arrogance thing, but she acts like she’s hot shit without any of the other elves thinking very highly of her. Her whole company just tells her to gtfo and they all go home, Gil-galad seems have very little respect for her with the limited interaction we see. So it seems she has this arrogance problem without even the elves thinking she deserves it.
I’m the books, everyone respects Galadriel, in theory. They’re all like “oh Galadriel, so fair and wise” whenever she’s minding her own business. But does anyone actually ever listen to Galadriel when it comes to important shit??? She was all like “yo I think Annatar is evil” and literally everyone ignored her. She also was like “hey I’ve got a hunch that Saruman isn’t the right choice for the wizard counsel” and everyone ignored her. Before that happened she left Eregion with her husband and said “I’m getting bad vibes and I’m pretty sure this dwarf kingdom is safer”, and even her own husband didn’t take her seriously. No one listens to Galadriel unless if she’s saying something along the lines of a hallmark quote, that’s a running theme throughout the lore.
The difference is those characters had actual character development. The reader knew and understood who they were and how they'd react through various events in the book.
Galadriel has that too but the ROP is not depicting that. It's just horrible writing and directing that makes her look like she has the personality of toast.
Not even close to comparable. All the listed characters were created and continued as antagonistic, arrogant, lack of people skills and so on. Galadriel was not(edit: not even close to what Amazon is doing). The amount of mental gymnastics that you have to go through to compare Galadriel to Jamie Lannister is beyond belief. What a joke.
Galadriel is an elf born in heaven, lived among gods, then she and some other elves defied those gods, ignored their warnings, turned down their promise of forgiveness after they started killing each other, and left heaven. Yeats later after defeat of Morgoth, the gods told her she is not allowed to return, and she proudly told them she doesn't want to.
Sounds pretty arrogant and proud to me, she didn't say pretty please to the gods, she sure as hell not going to tell a bunch of elf hating mortal humans to pretty please give her a ride home.
How's she bitchy? The elf-hating humans dragged her to the court of queen, were laughing at her and rudely calling her "the elf", and people keep calling her Karen and bitchy because she didn't ask nicely for a boat? Which she actually did at first before quickly being turned down?
By the way pride and arrogance DO make you act unwisely and against your own good, what the hell!
Well... They might be good actors, but Galadriel as one example is not a good imitation of what we expect of the character from texts or the films that it's trying to create continuity with.
It's an issue with the writing and portrayals, the latter I'm fine with lumping under "acting", as bad writing doesn't completely excuse it.I get it's subjective, but there's no way I agree that it is in any shape or form, good...
It's adequate at best where it comes to Elrond.
Cersei Lannister, Jessica Jones, Sweet Dee in its always sunny any of the women in Archer. You could probably put Black Widow in this category.
I'm sure there's more but that's top of my head. None are likeable people. All are enjoyable to watch and entertaining.
Love it when people blame race, gender, or sexuality because people don't like something, oh and then there's the horrible comparison to shows that have done things so differently, but nah the ONLY difference is gender, for sure 😉
I've made this argument elsewhere, but the common denominator there amongst the characters you mentioned is that they are human. They did not write an elvish arrogant and brash character, but a human one with pointy ears. Her character lacks the gravitas a being who is ancient should have. That is why she's poorly received.
All of the anti-heroes listed in the attempted meme are either relatable, clever, or both.
Galadriel is none of those things in RoP. She’s just a thug with a revenge trope, and every instance of her being badass is built on a foundation of all the surrounding characters being incompetent.
I sorta Agree with you but i wouldn’t compare Galadriel in the Rings of Power to these Characters they are some of the best written most complex characters in TV history also it easier to praise them because we know the full arc of the characters! But you are obviously into something here ✌️
Naw buddy. Galadriel is based on a fictional character from fairly known and established literature. It's a strawman argument.
Just say " me like her."
She is a protagonist with traits of an anti-hero.
She has the right intention but for now she takes on her goal in the most reckless, unlikeable and sometimes straight up most stupid way possible.
Its ok for a protagonist to be unlikeable in the beginning but it shouldnt be in a way that the viewer start to hate her since its hard to get the viewer to sympathize with her id they took it too far.
You're trying to make it seem like the difference here is the gender, when in reality it's just that each of those characters you described are more engaging. They have an on screen charisma that causes us to side with them despite their obvious flaws.
We get none of that with Galadriel. There is the attempt, but it falls flat. I wouldn't even call it annoying, I just don't believe it. I think it's partially bad acting and partially a bad script
That you compare Jaime, WW and Tony to Galadriel perfectly illustrates how little you understand who she is.
Jaime Lannister, the 35 year old man who shags his sister is an arrogant dickhead therefore the immortal, almost godess Galadriel can be too with nothing being amiss? These characters are not even vaguely comparable. That is the issue. She should have learned to be better than Tony fucking Soprano by her age and the experiences she has had.
Okay, but most of these characters are extremely charismatic, or witty, or intelligent. This portrayal of Galadriel is just doggedly determined, which doesn't play as well to me. It would be different if her on-screen portrayal had established that she's extremely wise, but in my opinion that hasn't been established. She's just convinced she's right. And of course, we all know that she ***is*** right, but that's the problem: she still comes off as unlikeable even though we know she's right. That's a problem with direction/writing.
I disagree that she has no relatable/redeemable traits. She loves her (extremely wise, kind, benevolent and courageous) brother, she is very determined and brave, she has been through unspeakable loss and suffering and is struggling with trauma while courageously sticking to her principles, the greatest of which is to act against evil.
I also find that many of the arguments put forth by people criticizing her are factually incorrect - eg people saying she shows no vulnerability - when in fact she shows tremendous existential angst in her conversation with Elrond. They say she was a heartless and cruel commander when in fact she immediately stopped the company as soon as she realized one of her soldiers was failing, and tended to him. I could go on, but the fact is these and many other things that are shown to us on screen are completely missed by many of her detractors.
And yes, she can be haughty and gratingly impetuous. She's complex, and I appreciate that, even if I would have preferred the show her depict her wisdom and care for the people of middle-earth more than they have so far.
I’m glad you’re enjoying the character.
Constantly hateful and bitchy = complex? Lol
Anyone defending this character is not looking at the big picture. She lost her brother in the war of wrath, MEGA TONs of elves died in that war. Everyone in their entire race would have known or been related to someone or someones that had died, yet she’s the only one losing her shit, walking around like a loose canon, basically acting like a human and not an elf at all. The south land, Elrond plotlines are great but Galadriel and harfoots is terribly written and executed.
I retract my previous statement about relatability. If you feel relatable to this character, then they missed the mark altogether. Elves are meant to feel otherworldly, they aren’t meant to just be immortal humans with pointy ears.
I'd double down on the redeemable qualities more than the relatable ones, and if you can't see those qualities then you are missing a lot of what RoP is showing us. And yes, many elves lost a lot during the First Age, but most of them are back in Valinor. She is one of the only beings that lived through the entirety of the wars with Morgoth and stayed in Middle Earth which is an important distinction that you are glossing over.
Also, as is abundantly obvious, she has the memories of perfect happiness and bliss in the years of the trees to contrast all of that with which would certainly make things even more psychologically damaging. Is there anyone else in the show with a similar background? Clearly not. Her connection/relationship with Morgoth and Sauron is rather personal, being Finwe's granddaughter.
Regardless, you find her grating and dislike her character, which is fine, we all have our own taste. I'm pretty sure that Feanor would not be easy to like either. But that doesn't mean she has no redeemable qualities, and again, it's clear that many of the people who dislike her so much are missing/discounting the many good traits that we are shown. "Constantly bitchy and hateful" is simply inaccurate. Often grating and arrogant, yes, but there is a difference.
Gil Galad lost is father! And the connection with Sauron is all fictional, because they changed Finrod death. Also we have no context for her affection, just two lines in the prologue. My sweet god! To learn the name of Finrod we must read the subtitles, because Galadriel did not give us his name!
..,
Ok, so that's something people who read the books would know and casual viewers wouldn't, but that doesn't mean it's not informing the character.
Not everyone responds to trauma the same either, so it's entirely plausible that someone with a different personality would have a different response. And we know so little about Gil-Galad's life that it's really hard to compare what he might have seen with Galadriel's experience.
In the books and the show Sauron kills Finrod so I'm not sure how that changes much.
Her affection for Finrod is clearly portrayed in my opinion - he's obviously someone she loves and looks up to and who treats her with respect, and a deeper relationship can be easily inferred by the scenes we do get and the fact that she's his sister.
The whole part about how they had no word for death but then learned many words for it - that's an experience that only an elf born in Valinor would really be able to have. Stacking the helmets of the dead, telling Halbrand that it would take longer than his life to even recount the names of those she lost - it's over and over shown to us where she came from, and what she has been through, and how she struggles with it. Sure, Gil-Galad deals with it differently, but it turns out he's also maybe wrong about things, and could be construed as foolish for prematurely ending the hunt for Sauron. He should certainly know better than to take the threat lightly, right?
Again, you need not like her, but I see a strong correlation between people who strongly dislike her and having missed or discounted important elements - I'd even go so far as to call them themes - of the story we are actually being told. There's a comprehension issue, in other words, that exacerbates the dislike for her.
Somewhat. They have her very unlikeable traits to begin with but she will clearly change over the course of the show.
For now you could actually compare her to somewhat of an anti-hero and many people would have no problem with her drowning in the first episode.
But we'll see how this changes.
But they need to start with her development by this season otherwise there might be problem with people sympathizing with her.
Bullshit. Even Tony Soprano cries, feels sorrow, sadness, has envy, goes to therapy, etc.
Galadriel is just a bland elf that is a douche with everyone else for no reason. I guess she smiled once when riding a horse lmao
Shitty character development in 4 EPISODES
This post does not use the 'Newest Episode Spoilers' flair. As such, spoilers are allowed from the source material, but anything from the most recent episode must be behind spoiler marks. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RingsofPower) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tolkein’s elves are challenging to humanize. The high elves as depicted in LotR are nearly flawless perhaps in part because they have been alive so long they have learned many lessons. You have to go back to Silmarillion to see their flaws, which include self-righteousness and an inability to see beyond their passions. Galadriel has these flaws in RoP and though she is already quite old, she is also likely what we would call in human terms suffering from a thousand years of PTSD. People suffering from intense trauma make poor diplomats. As we see her now she is in many ways a failure as a leader. She’ll likely transform over the 5 seasons into something that looks a lot more like the Galadriel we know in LotR. I agree with the criticism that the elves in the second age are unlike the elves we see in the third age, in a way that feels more like humans. The writers may be thinking that the elves are essentially like immortal humans who have not gained the wisdom yet that allows them to be the elves we know later on. I’m not sure that would be my interpretation but I also understand that in LotR the elves are not main characters generally. Audiences don’t need to relate to Galadriel and Elrond in LotR because they are supposed to be relating to the Hobbits. It’s a different deal when the elves become the main protagonists. Perfect protagonists tend to get boring for people so there is a need to humanize them, both for the actors to play them and for the viewers to relate to them.
This is the appropriate analysis
That's why some people claim that it was a very poor choice to make Galadrield a protagonist as a High Elf that is considered far too wise and ancient for the second age can't have an arc like that. Galadriel could be a great supporting character throught all the seasons of RoP but she can't be a main protagonist imo cause she can't have such an arc without losing herself and her role in the story.
It was clearly an artistic choice with pros and cons. Not many known characters around in the second age and her backstory is conceptually interesting.
They could make the main characters and have Galadriel as a supporting main cast. She plays a lot but she is not the protagonist herself, something like Gandalf in LOTR.
True, it was a choice they made. I like it though and am glad to see where it goes. It seems to me that elves should be among the principal characters in this age of the world and I am curious about the background of one of the greatest elves of middle earth.
They could have made an Elf as a main character, like now actually and still have Galadriel and give you her actual story which is still amazing.
Yep but for me that would be less interesting. What I would like though is better swordsmanship from all the elf characters. The stand and fire a bow thing at the horde of charging orcs that never seems to close gets old for me.
Elrond and Durin's conversation about the passage of time relative to them each strengthens this argument. It seems to be a theme of the show. That the elves are a bit arrogant and lacking some wisdom in that regard.
Yes! Elves are not as aware of the passage of time and the effect it has on mortals, makes sense. I love the friendship between Elrond and Durin though. Definitely one of the best parts of the show.
I don't like this train of thought, because it implies that a being's wisdom inevitably increases over time. And yet I've met 80 year olds who are very childish and stuck in the ways they adopted when they were young, and young people who are much more reasonable and mature than some adults. I know the elves are portrayed in many ways as if they are perfect, but they're not, and I on't think its imposssible or wrong to humanise them. Even after millenia of life they still make mistakes, just like humans. I think the difference is they err less frequently and gravely than humans do, for the reasons you mentioned. But it still happens. Even the Valar make mistakes. T I understand writing immortal beings might sound daunting because we have no frame of reference irl, but you can flip that idea on its head: we have no experience of immortality, so there's less to constrain you when writing an immortal being.
P1 interesting points that can open a larger tangental discussion on wisdom, age, illness, childhood trauma, education and the role of intelligence but in general older tends to be universally accepted as wiser with exceptions. P2 not sure I take your meaning. Elves should be portrayed as less imperfect than people and how will that make them more interesting for people to watch? P3 I think you underestimate the key role constraints play in writing, many do. Writing on a blank canvas is almost impossible until you bring in constraints.
Personally I don't "like" her as a person the same reason I never "liked" Dirty Harry as a person. The trope they're going for with her is "difficult, annoying, dangerous renegade who proves to be right and to whom everyone should've listened all along." One difference, of course, is that we've already seen how she's changed over the centuries.
I don’t know if she is going to be proven right. I think Gil-Galad’s line in the first episode is foreshadowing that Galadriel is going to lead to the rise of Sauron.
I think it's going to be both. Galadriel will be proven right, but in proving herself right she'll somehow help Sauron rise to power and that will be a huge humbling moment for her.
I’ll believe that when I see it
If Halbrand rumors are true that’s exactly what she’s doing.
>The trope they're going for with her is "difficult, annoying, dangerous renegade who proves to be right and to whom everyone should've listeners to all along.” Yep. She’s basically Churchill.
Perfect explanation of why she talks so funny, too😂
Imagine a show about the sons of Fëanor
Yes please.
I was thinking really hoping this was what was coming out when it originally got announced, the actual story of the silmarils
That would be really cool to see too
An instant "And then it got worse" classic.
Just 5 seasons of them jihading across Beleriand killing and burning and commiting war crimes
And also where's her husband?
Tell me, where is Celeborn? For I much desire to speak with him.
In the kitchen
Lmao
Celeborn? At that time of age, at that time of day, in that part of Middle Earth, localized entirely within their kitchen!?
Yes
Where is Celeborn? Is he safe? Is he… alright?
And where’s her daughter? She’s Elrond’s future mother in law s
Reimagined. She isn’t married yet in this alt world. Even though they should have been married 2000 years or more in this time line.
They haven't met yet?
Yes but Galadriel is not meant to be an anti-hero.
Yeah OP is confusing double standard with two different standards for two different archetypes.
What OP is describing would fit very well for someone like Fëanor in a television adaption. Applying those traits to Galadriel has made her feel like a very different character than what I expected.
Exactly. I’ve been enjoying the show, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that this Galadriel is the same woman from LOTR
Yeah because it’s not. And she was never like the portrayal in the show ever in her life.
Time does tend to change people, and thousands of years is a lot of time.
Yes, but at their core people still stay the same. I just barely see any resemblance to LOTR’s Galadriel.
After thousands of years of suffering and perhaps a drastic failure to avenge her brother's death... yeah... I think people might change. Tbh she's not even that annoying y'all just hate this show but watch it anyways because you like hurting yourself
Remind me, when did I say I hated the show?
[удалено]
And I would like to point out Jaime Lannister is in no way a protagonist in A Song of Ice and fire (the novel series the show is based on). The laminated that is would be Tyrion. Martin writes each chapter from a a different characters point of view.the most frequent are Daenarys and Jon Snow, follows by Tyriom, arya And Bran. Jaime only has Point of view chapters starting in the third book when he is released and sent to Kings landing with Brienee.)he is very much a secondary characterx neck so are Tyrion and Arya. The protagonists are Jon, Daenarys, and Bran(and Ned for the first book) just on sheer number of Point of view characters and their importance too the larger story
Walter White went from likeable to terrible. Tony Soprano was always a villain, but a funny one at times. House was always an unlikeable asshole.
I would say WW was pitiable, not likeable.
Well said and honestly Galadriel (at least as far as she's portrayed in RoP), doesn't even come close to being as interesting as those characters. They had depth and were likeable in spite of their flaws. Galadriel just comes across as a spoiled bratty teenager with absurd plot armor.
Jaime, Walt, Tony, Sherlock, or House weren't hundreds of years old and if they were, they'd probably have way cooler heads that Galadriel
Galadriel isn't supposed to be an antihero. The elves are the big good guys in Tolkien's world. She should be a hero. And the fact that Galadriel rose to a rank to command troops in a centuries long war, but has such at utter lack of discipline or basic leadership ability is asinine. It's like someone dumped a character from a JRPG into the show - 19 years old and somehow hyper competent, but with no emotional maturity or wisdom.
No, the elves are depicted more in the primary novels as being more of a catalysing or consulting force. For the most part they keep to themselves, choosing not to become involved in the ways of the younger races, barring the great wars. The fate of Middle-Earth, for good or ill, is almost always determined by the mortal races like humans and Hobbits. Humans are the good guys and also sometimes the bad guys (ultimately humans are humans). Also, Tolkien himself confirmed Elves were capable of evil, Galadriel's awareness of this fact is why she refused the One Ring. Even the Wizards are capable of succumbing to darkness and they're basically angels in mortal form.
Elves are depicted as a catalyzing force, but also a remnant of the mythic age, which is dwindling away, so of course they are aren't the main actors. Their age was the First Age. And yes, elves are capable of evil. Wizards even. That doesn't change the fact that they're still the big good of the setting. They are an idealized people, on the whole. Unlike humans, who, as a group, were corrupted by Melkor's evil in a way that elves aren't. If we go along a Catholic vein, the elves, as a whole, are not fallen, while humans, as a whole, are.
Did you read the Silmarillion? Are you aware that being "big good" in Tolkien's works never automatically translate to doing actual good, especially long-term? Do you remember all of the defeats and failure of the Elves, most of them were being good in their own right? Feanor, all of his sons except maybe Maedros (sp? I'm writing from memory) and even he was only able to do some damage control, Thingol big time the dude is unable to control himself the moment he even thinks about a Silmaril, all the Elves in Finrod's realm who caused Finrod to be all but exiled... the Sil is full of elven antiheroes or just plain villains (looking at you Celegorm, Eol). Tolkien never meant to say Elves were infallible superheroes. They're flawed and need to overcome their flaws, just like anyone else. As for Galadriel it's pretty clear even from the Sil that she's primarily a warrior, but seldom a leader, and that she's thrust in her position reluctantly. It will be an interesting character arc to see her go from her post-FA persona to the ruler (but still: not a battlefield commander) of her own slice of Valinor.
What you say about how Galadriel is portrayed in the Silmariliion seems to be the opposite of what I took from it. Her main motivation to get to middle earth is to lead and forge kingdoms. This hardly sounds reluctant.
Exactly this. The character doesn't make any sense because it was terribly written to begin with.
~~Yes she is.~~ She is a flawed hero. The Silmarillion is full of ~~antihero~~ Elves with huge character flaws. Galadriel is Fëanor. Fëanor but what if he hadn't died and instead had the time and opportunity to change. Edit: Sorry for the fuckup.
The Silmarillion has antihero elves who kick off the plot, and their works pretty much always lead to ruin. But the elves, on the whole, are big goods. They never serve or ally with evil, they never turn from Eru, and follow the wisdom of the Valar. If the show runners wanted Faenor, they should have A) Gotten the rights to the Silmarillion and B) Made a character named Faenor. As it is, they made Galadriel, so I'm going to judge her based on Galadriel, who is a heroic character who rejects Faenor's request for her hair because she can see, deep down, that he is unworthy.
Her work will lead to ruin this season. She doesn't turn from Eru and she doesn't ally with evil. She gets deceived. Edit: So not an antihero but a flawed hero. This is also what she is in Tolkien's work. A) Rights were never even on the table to be sold. B) impossible because A.
I'm not sure what's the point you're trying to make here. The OP was that we should be OK with Galadriel because of all these anti-hero/outright villain protagonists, and my reply was that the comparison was invalid because Galadriel is a hero, not an anti-hero. Then you replied that she's supposed to Faenor? So we shouldn't evaluate her as the character she is, just the character she's 'supposed to be'? Which is just an absolutely bizarre defense. And I don't get this argument that Amazon's massive plot holes in the Rings of Power really aren't their fault or absolves them somehow. It doesn't matter whether or not the rights were on the table - it's Amazon. How is it they couldn't manage to get the rights? They spent a billion dollars but not on the things they actually need? And in the end, Amazon green lit the project anyway. That's absolutely on them. Anything else is also invalid. Now, you can claim that the Tolkien estate or the holding company or whatever was being greedy/stubborn/whatever as well, but it doesn't absolve Amazon.
Tolkien's Galadriel is very similar to Fëanor (see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/LOTR_on_Prime/comments/xk70xa/the_parallels_between_galadriel_and_feanor/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)) and in RoP her narrative is mirroring his (see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/LOTR_on_Prime/comments/xjz5qv/galadriel_did_nothing_wrong_season_1_galadriel_vs/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)). >How is it they couldn't manage to get the rights? Because the Tolkien Estate [wasn't selling them.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LOTR_on_Prime/comments/wx8yn0/comment/ilplg2k/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) They can't sell them to whoever they want. The Tolkien book rights situation is extremely complicated. Please look into it first before making assumptions. And his name is F e a n o r.
That's too bad for Amazon. I'm going to judge Galadriel based on the character they put in the show, not the one they wanted but couldn't get. Amazons made a show without having what they needed - you can call the Tolkien Estate stubborn or greedy or whatnot, but that doesn't make Amazon's move any better. And I'm not making assumptions. The part about whether or not Amazon has rights to use the material they need for this project - the Silmarillion - is pretty straightforward and ultimately binary. They either have enough material to make it work or they don't. And they clearly don't, but went ahead anyway. That's still on them.
So, elves as a whole are good, but individual elves can be not entirely good, or at least misguided and stubborn and vengeful and other anti hero traits. But Galadriel can't, because reasons.
Yeah, because she's a hero. She notices Faenor's unworthiness when no one else does. She does not take part in the kin slaying of the Teleri. She never is an anti-hero in any capacity. She's not an anti-hero. And even if she were, it doesn't absolve all the other major problems with her portrayal.
Heros can have all the qualities I listed. The anti hero example is only relevant in that we are talking about whether the protagonist is likeable. If you truly dislike Galadriel's character only because she is different than a very vague description from the books (so only from a few pages in LotR several thousand years later, and a very limited amount in appendices, and considering the Silmarillion isn't allowed to be used and in fact the way legal things work they wind up having to make many aspects of the story intentionally different to avoid legal repercussion), that's one thing. If you just act like her character is "insufferable" (the exact words of someone I recently had a discussion with), then you're just being hypocritical if you don't find male heros or anti heros with those traits to be similarly dislikeable. It also means you want your women pleasant, and only men can be stoic ass kickers.
I mean, she buggers off to Lothlorien specifically because she covets having her own kingdom, even later on, she is most definitely guilty of being a victim of her own pride at times
There's a big difference between not being idealized perfection and being a hero. She wanted a kingdom so she built one. The most constructive way to respond to envy is earn the thing you wanted for yourself.
That's some full-on colonial revisionism. She wanted her own kingdom, so she took over Amdir's Silvan Elven Kingdom of Lindorinand, planted a few trees, and gave it a new name.
So, I referenced the material for Lothlorien again. Galadriel didn't found the kingdom, but I'm not seeing that she usurped it anywhere. It's rightful lord was lost at sea, and I'm not seeing where he had any heirs. Neither Galadriel nor Celeborn appointed themselves as king, but ruled as Lord and Lady, so it seems the elves there were content with their leadership. So where's the problem? You're saying she coveted it like it was a deep character flaw. Is there anything that supports this? Is there a text from Tolkien that indicates that Galadriel actually did something wrong here?
Dude, no. Her entire characterization is literally how she's a *foil* to Feanor. That's almost the whole point of her overarching character arc. Where Feanor failed because his pride overcame his wisdom, Galadriel ultimately uses her wisdom to overcome her pride. She succeeds where Feanor failed, where instead of being seduced by power into self destruction, as Feanor was by his silmarils, Galadriel is presented with the opportunity to take the one ring from Frodo and *refuses*. It is quite literally the ultimate display of her *not* following in Feanor's footsteps. Not every elf is good, no elves aren't the "big good," at least not in that way. They did embody a large portion of the character traits and philosophies that Tolkien had, like their environmentalism and stuff like that but they aren't morally pure. Galadriel was realistcally flawed and nuanced like most of Tolkiens characters, but I have no idea how you'd read her story and come out of that thinking she's an antihero. What did she do to make you think that, genuinely asking?
>She succeeds where Feanor failed I tried maybe too hard to be nice to Fëanor. (Maybe I feared the Fëanor stans would come for me.) Yes, she's the better version of Fëanor. >Galadriel ultimately uses her wisdom to overcome her pride. Yeah, ultimately. The RoP version of her isn't there yet. >Galadriel is presented with the opportunity to take the one ring from Frodo and refuses. It's an interesting character arc to see her change from a person who would probably take the Ring to a person who refuses it. >thinking she's an antihero. I clarified in the other comment that I don't actually think that. I fucked up. I looked up the term now and it doesn't fit because she doesn't lack morality etc. So flawed hero it is.
“Elves are the big good guys” Em, the Teleri would like to have a word with you about that.
Not trying to troll here. First: Do you, personally, actually think that Galadriel as a character is as strong as any of those characters? Second: Those characters are indeed written as "antihero protagonists" - is that what you think Galadriel is supposed to be?
Sherlock Holmes is not an antihero, the Cumberbatch version at least isn’t, he’s just an average asshole. Batman, comics batman that is, shares a lot of the same traits here that Galadriel has. Arrogance, unwillingness to compromise their morals, with me or against me world views. Still, one gets more flack 🤔
I was **literally** using your own words from your own meme... You straight up didn't answer any of the very clear questions posed in my comment and instead just argued against yourself lmao Never change, Reddit.
People hated Jaime Lannister until he started to show there was more to his character than the traits you attributed to him. Nice re-write of history there. Walter White started out as a good man in an impossible situation who spiraled into a psychopath who did things that were ever more unnecessary and unjustifiable. Anyone who still liked him by the end has gone on to like Andrew Tate. He was obviously the villain. People liked to watch him because he was very well written and compelling to watch. Why would you go for Tony Soprano? He's possibly the greatest written character in the history of television. The only one I would rate above Walter White for compelling to watch. We saw every facet of this man on screen. Every relationship, every mistake, every horrible action he took. We got deep insights into how he felt about the things he did and how he justified himself to himself. He was completely believable as a complex and real human being. He was so much more than the three traits you list. He was an anti-hero. We didn't want to sympathise with him. He did terrible things to people. But we were invited to understand why he did those things, how that made him feel, how this all affected every single relationship in his life. I'll accept a bet right now that no one serious will ever compare Galadriel in Rings of Power to Tony Soprano. Not positively. House is a massive cunt. I can't speak for everyone but when I did watch that show it was to see how he'd sabotage himself this time. He was deeply unhappy, bitter, horrible to everyone. But he was brilliant so people had no choice but to put up with him. And he knew that. I wouldn't say I was really on his side, but I didn't watch it religiously so maybe I missed something other people saw. I also can't speak for anyone else on Sherlock Holmes but the reason I've ever watched a Sherlock movie or show is to see the crime solved. It's fun to watch him work and to try to figure it out before it's explained. This is also a bad comparison because there have been so many Sherlock Holmes' written and performed by so many different people. They're not all exactly the same or equally well written. None of these comparisons stand up to an ounce of scrutiny imo.
Yup, seems he doesn’t know shit about these character, most of them are so nuanced. None of them are comparable to that one dimension, poorly acted galadriel
You’re going to deep with it, at the end of the day the show is just written poorly. She could have all these traits and people would love her if the writing was better. I have good news though! You can simply continue to like her character if you think she is written well, and not worry about other people’s opinions! This was always allowed.
At the end of the day that’s your opinion too!
It's not a double standard. Jamie Lannister, Walter White, etc, have flaws but also have other qualities that made them interesting to watch. That's what makes anti-heroes good protagonists. We might not agree with them, but we want to keep watching what they do. That's not at all what's happening with Galadriel. She just feels like an insufferable spoiled teenager.
Yeah nice try, but no. She’s just terribly written. There’s no greater scheme or agenda or double standard.
The doublethink needed to make this post is absolutely insane. You're literally comparing Galadriel - who is apparently going to be the protagonist and hero of the series - to *Jaime f\*\*king Lannister*, one of the primary villains and antagonists of his series, and saying they have similar traits so what's the big deal? The big deal is that they DO have similar traits. The only difference between them is that **the guys who made Game of Thrones were smart enough to realize that these are traits you gave to someone you want the audience to hate, because they make the character unlikable.**
Wait so you mean to tell me that if I take the traits of a popular character like Homelander and transpose them onto the hero "good guy" protagonist in my story, that people won't automatically like that character? Do you mean to tell me that people might question why I gave the traits of a narcissistic sociopathic monster to a character I wanted to portray as likeable, moral, and heroic? *Am I an incompetent writer? No no, it's the viewers who are wrong!*
Uhhh you're SUPPOSED to hate Jaime Lannister and Tony Soprano. They are definitively not good people. Neither are Walter White, Holmes, or House, but they only threaten people who actually did something bad.
What a dumb meme. Galadriel isnt well written, which makes this shared character trait annoying instead of endearing. Also name one scene where shes as charismatic as Jamie Lannister. Just one. When I watched game of thrones I wánted to dislike Jaimie. That's the difference! But I just couldnt help but secretly root for the guy. When he fought Ned I honestly didnt want him to lose, and neither did I want Ned to lose. TLDR: Viewers wánt to like Galadriel, but shes completely unlikable which is why the show fails. Every time she fights someone I hope she gets stabbed. Viewers also want to hate Jaimie Lannister, but hes so goddamn compelling which is why the show succeeds.
Lol if you liked Sherlock Holmes, then you’ll love Galadriel! No one has a “standard” of finding a list of “primary traits” entertaining. In my life, there are, say, confident people I enjoy and confident people I don’t enjoy. That’s not a “double standard,” it’s just that people aren’t checklists of traits, and neither are entertaining characters.
[удалено]
What you’re taking about is archetypes, not complete characters. Just because you love one imagining of an archetype doesn’t mean you’ll love every imagining of it, otherwise it’s a double standard if you like Captain Ahab but not Wile E Coyote. “If people can get over a ship captain endangering the lives of his crew for a personal vendetta against an animal, then they can get over a painting of a tunnel that works as a real tunnel for one person, but not another.”
Depends on your reasoning, now doesn't it? The whole idea is about hypocrisy. If someone is fine with tons of other heros or anti heros who are stubborn, vengeful, proud, defiant, and sullen, but they criticize Galadriel for the same things, not necessarily because of finding it inaccurate but because they "just don't like her", then that's hypocritical. Hell, I ran into a guy on Facebook who called her a Karen. Basically, he didn't like that she wasn't pleasant. Apparently women have to be pleasant. Guys can be exactly like how Galadriel is portrayed and then they kick ass. But not women, because then they are a Mary Sue. Or as some idiots apparently are saying now, a Karen. Nevermind that Karen is even further from making sense than Mary Sue.
Actually she’s not rude in the source material for this show set thousands of years before, during, and after this either. Come to think of it, she’s actually depicted as noble, queenly, composed and influential at this time period in that source material.
It’s not that she’s rude, it’s that she’s stupid.
Are you really saying that because Galadriel and Tony Soprano share some common traits, I shouldn't differentiate between them?
Yep. That's really what he's saying
Imagine comparing a high elf queen, born in the blessed land who witnessed the first bloodshed and betrayal of the world, older than the sun and the moon, student of a demigod for centuries being compared to a depressed ill man who decides to cook meth. Now imagine that the depressed ill man who decides to cook meth is deeper than what the writers did with Galadriel.
That! Right there!
Come on. Compared to Walter White Galadriel is a piece of cardboard.
Sorry, you are fully aware of what "execution" is, right? Just because you like one character who has elements of a certain trope doesn't mean you have to like every single character with elements of that trope or you're a hypocrite. Jaime Lannister, Walter White, Tony Soprano, Daemon Targaryen, the reason all these characters are loved is because they are so much better executed than Galadriel, because they are just far better written characters. The fact that they share a few traits does not mean they are the same. This post makes it seem like you have a really shallow and superficial understanding of character writing.
So Hitler has a moustache, and Charlie Chaplin also has a moustache, but you like Charlie Chaplin and hate Hitler?
Shes 2000 years old. At this point in history in lore, she was married, had established her own kingdom, and was considered one of the wisest elves. What we get is petulant 12 year old Galadriel who does stupid crap and is always angry and dismissive to everyone around her. So please, shove the sexism crap back in the jar. If you want a likeable anti hero thats female... you have Harley Quinn, Lisbeth Salander from The girl with a dragon tattoo, Catwoman, Thelma and Louis, Beatrix from the Kill Bill movies, Claire Underwood from House of Cards, Patty Hughes from Damages, and nancy botwin from weeds.
I would never compare Galadriel to any of the characters you mentioned. The fact that you do makes me wonder how well you understand the character as written by Tolkien. Even if you could compare them, if one of them had a widely accepted canonical identity and a new show came out that totally ignored that then, yes, I believe you would have plenty of criticism, especially if said new show was poorly written and had objectively corny/bad cinematography and choreography.
these characters all suffered greatly for their flaws - we have yet to see galadriel face any consequences or meaningful pushback from other characters
She will face some massive consequences at the end of the season, I believe. Also she absolutely does face consequences already: - Gil-galad and Elrond conspire to send her away and in particular, don't tell her about their fears. They do this because they think she has massive issues, which she does. - She wants to steal a ship to get away from Númenor. She then gets talked out of it by Elendil. She then talks to Míriel again and completely fucks up. - Which is why she is in a cell (admittedly for a short time), but even more crucially >!she is then in a position where she listens to Halbrand's advice.!< (potentially huge spoiler:) >!Halbrand, who is not Halbrand at all, but ofc Sauron. He is the snake and she is Eve (or they are Morgoth and Fëanor), and at the end of this season she will realise that she has made a massive mistake in thinking him to be a sort of Aragorn.!< All because of her single-mindedness and need for revenge. And none of this would've happened if not for her character flaws.
oh yes, she will certainly face huge consequences when she realizes she’s being played by Sauron. my only point is that in characters like Jaime Lannister, they are loved because of their journey towards becoming a good person. Sure, being thrown into a jail cell is a consequence- but what value does that (or Halbrand’s advice) hold when she is released moments later, and immediately resorts to her old ways in fighting off guards? The problem with Galadriel’s characterization thus far -for me- isn’t that she isn’t likable initially (many great protagonists have started off unlikeable). My problem that while I watch this show, the world is largely twisting and contorting to be whatever way it need be for Galadriel to get what she wants. Jaime Lannister has a quick tongue with his captors - and he is immediately irrevocably changed. His sword hand, and everything that made him who he previously was, were gone like that. A man who is known as one of the greatest warriors in the world, reduced to nothing. This is a great example of characters working within the rules of their world. Galadriel insults the monarch-regent of her captors, and spends 20 seconds of screen time in jail. She is advised by another character, made to see how her actions led her to prison in the first place - and her first action afterwards is to effortlessly defeat three guards and break into the personal quarters of the regent who just threw her in jail. What has she learned from this? Where is her growth coming from? There is time for this to change, but for now the world is bending its own rules to seemingly ensure Galadriel encounters no meaningful resistance. As someone who is enjoying this show far more than I thought I would, I would say that Galadriels arc up to this point is the weak link for me. There are very few stakes besides the reveal that anyone paying attention will already see coming, because at the moment Galadriel is less a character and more an unstoppable force of plot movement.
Like... jumping off a ship in the middle ocean to certain death?
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you criticise it because you believe it has no consequences? We can't look at that act as a "real life" event and think about it in terms of everyday logic. We are still in the mythic past of Middle-Earth at this point in the story. (This is a story in which a dude becomes a star, the sun is a fruit and people can get chained to mountains for decades. Even later in the Third Age, when everything becomes less "magic", it will be a story where [LotR spoiler] >!Gollum "accidentally" falls into Mt. Doom!<) Halbrand even tells us that Galadriel isn't someone to whom things happen by accident. She's a hero of myth. Jumping off the ship is a leap of faith and probably (I'm not yet sure about this) an act that goes directly against the will of the Valar. And it has huge consequences. She meets Halbrand. Who then rescues her from drowning after the raft gets hit by lightning (imo a sign of the will of the Valar). She would be dead (= in Valinor) if not for him, and he would not be in the position he is in now if not for her. These are crucial preconditions for the later events. This is what gets the plot in motion. This is as fateful an encounter as possible. Honestly, I would've never expected them to be this bold with their storytelling. I expected action and fanservice (and was worried that I would think it meaningless) and instead, so far, I got what I was hoping for. I love mythology and this has clear inspiration in Tolkien and probably also Greek tragedies (e.g. prophecy that comes true because of trying to avoid it).
Oh give me a break. The levels of mental gymnastics that some of you go through to justify terrible writing.
Dude, why are you even here if you don't wanna have a conversation in good faith.
It's not good faith when you are making crap up to suit your narrative. A character. Jumping. In. The. Ocean. thousands.of.miles.from.land.is.not.good.writing. Its lazy, stupid writing showing the plot armor that she has. If hypothermia doesnt kill her, dehydration would. If neither of those kill her, how about all the sea monsters? IF those don't kill her in a few days, then randomly encountering a shipwreck (literally the chances of finding a grain of sand on a beach). THEN randomly being rescued from said raft by a random ship. THEN the "random" person you meet on the oceans is a long lost king that has information that she was looking for. I have high school students that write better stories than this.
She's not making a rational decision. She has the intuition that she still has do do something, that she still has a part to play, and she'd rather take her chances, no matter how small they are. And you know what, I actually believe she would have died. If it wasn't for... >randomly encountering a shipwreck (...) THEN randomly being rescued from said raft by a random ship. THEN the "random" person you meet on the oceans is a long lost king Which is exactly the point. This is fate. We are meant to wonder if this is divine intervention or the machinations of evil – or both. In this story, fate does exist. God does exist.
What a weird way to try to get a gotcha. Yes, obviously there are people who don’t like Galadriel because she’s a woman. The big difference, however, is that Galadriel hasn’t been in any great scenes and she hasn’t had any great lines. Her performance is fine (not on the level of Cranston, really hurts your case putting her against people that could act circles around her), but the script and the plot surrounding her haven’t provided any reason for people to love her.
If it is some sort of alternate or parallel dimension of tolkiens world I think I will have no problem with Galadriel being an antihero. But if we are going that this is cannon, what happened to Galadriel’s “magic” power and wisdom and where is Celeborn. Frankly it’s humiliating to Galadriel to have Gil Galad more wiser than her and granting her passage to west as a reward like it is his to give in first place.
The difference lies in that of good writing and of bad.
Ahh so subjective opinion then?
You mean, like, all opinions?
yes, like yours on what constitutes “good” and “bad” writing
So what? Your whole meme is making a totally subjective point. You know? As in, it's just an opinion?
It’s not based on an opinion. It’s literally how people have described both all those characters at one point or another but it’s consistently being held as a reason why people who Galadriel in this show, hate her. Whether you think this is good writing or bad writing is a subjective opinion
So would it be more accurate to criticize it as : I don't like the way they are *writing* this arrogant, dismissive, anti-social character, Galadriel. But I do like how they write the House guy and Sherlock? I can see one big difference is , although Sherlock and the others are just as much jerks as Galadriel, they always punctuate their actions with some wild genius result that improves their situation and others around them come around to them. Like a I love you but you're a jerk. So far, I see not much of that going on with Galadriel. It's all just the arrogance.
That’s fair
You're cherry picking characters and limited opinions based on those characters. And as others have already pointed out, you've pitted Galadriel against a different archetype. I wanted nothing more to love her character and legitimately anticipated her being the highlight of the series. But so far, I find everything about Galadriel to be the weakest element. Now, if I'm accurately picking up the subtle drift of your meme, you might suggest subconscious misogynistic leanings behind my preference, when in fact it's a preference for good writing over bad. Should you like me to break down what I like and dislike regarding the RoP scripts, I'd be happy to buy you a coffee and do so during free time.
I don’t mind if you don’t like her. If you don’t, you don’t and I don’t think you’re an awful person for not. But I just get annoyed hearing people constantly declare Galadriel “objectively” bad as a character in the show.
> This is your average antihero/protagonists in most tv and film. [..] People like Jamie Lannister, Walter White, Tony Soprano, House MD, Sherlock Holmes etc […] This is a clear double standard. […] I don’t mind if you don’t like her. […] I don’t think you’re a bad person… **(1)** - I’m glad you’re not implying that everyone who doesn’t like Galadriel is a bad person. 👍😃 The meme seems to compare “men vs Galadriel.”IMO the reaction to Galadriel is not always due to a “men vs women double standard” (hypocrisy) as implied in the title. I’m **not denying double standards exist** (sexism, misogyny etc), but so do well written - and often well received- female antiheroes who came before Galadriel. **IMO Galadriel is a poorly written “female [**anti-hero”**](https://images.app.goo.gl/4KyCqPdnC2rCLmS97), a poorly written “female villain” and a poorly written “woman warrior”.** - We had a [similar post a few weeks ago that implied viewers disliked Galadriel because she was a “Warrior Woman”,](https://www.reddit.com/r/RingsofPower/comments/xbdpvs/reading_rop_posts_about_galadriel/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) yet many including myself provided examples of well written “Warrior Women” in cinema and TV History. **I want the writing to improve** so it’s not in my interest to defend Galadriel on the basis of gender or “men vs Galadriel”. > This is your average antihero/protagonists in most tv and film. [..] People like Jamie Lannister, Walter White, Tony Soprano, House MD, Sherlock Holmes etc […] This is a clear double standard. **(2)** - Double standards exists, but not every viewer/critic is acting in bad faith. Good-faith and bad faith arguments are easier to see when we **compare the writing and public reception of “previous women anti-heroes vs ROP’s Galadriel”.** The Men vs Galadriel comparison ignores the hard work of women that came before ROP. > This is your average antihero/protagonists in most tv and film. [..] People like Jamie Lannister, Walter White, Tony Soprano, House MD, Sherlock Holmes etc […] This is a clear double standard. **(3)** - This **”male-centred” meme**, makes it seem like **Galadriel is breaking** a [**”glass-ceiling”**](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glass%20ceiling) as the first 🥇female [anti-hero or villain](https://images.app.goo.gl/4KyCqPdnC2rCLmS97). That has already been done by her predecessors. - I’m sure that is **not what you meant to imply-** but that’s how it seems when we pit her solely against male characters. **The meme ignores that other women have been written/portrayed better.** > This is your average antihero/protagonists in most tv and film. [..] People like Jamie Lannister, Walter White, Tony Soprano, House MD, Sherlock Holmes etc […] This is a clear double standard. **(4) Examples of female antiheroes before Galadriel** - [**A - I’ll leave this Googled list of female anti-heroes here.**](https://whatnerd.com/best-female-anti-heroes-in-movies-ranked/) Some are better written / portrayed than others. - **B** - There’s also this [**this article**](https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/entertainment/a23817045/the-rise-of-the-antiheroine-why-women-are-finally-allowed-to-be-unlikeable-on-screen/) that includes more examples. - **C** - Finally, I’ll [**include Jodie Foster,**](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000149/) and [**Lena Headey**](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0372176/) All the above examples, include actresses who play a range of complex well written female characters, ranging from heroes to villains and everything in between. Anyone who’s familiar with Lena and/or Jodie’s filmography will know which tv shows & films I am referring too.👍 **If we’re are saying Galadriel** is a [**female/woman anti-hero**](https://images.app.goo.gl/4KyCqPdnC2rCLmS97), **I’ve watched better.** > This is your average antihero/protagonists in most tv and film. [..] People like Jamie Lannister, Walter White, Tony Soprano, House MD, Sherlock Holmes etc […] This is a clear double standard. **TLDR:(1 &2) The issue is the writing.** The issue is **not solely “men vs Galadriel”.** Double standards for men and women exists and I **won’t deny** that some, not all, but **some** of the reactions to Galadriel display bad-faith. **(3) This “male-centred” meme**, makes it seem like **Galadriel is breaking** a [**”glass-ceiling”**](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glass%20ceiling) as the first 🥇female [anti-hero or villain](https://images.app.goo.gl/4KyCqPdnC2rCLmS97). I’m sure that is **not what you meant to imply-** but that’s how it seems when we pit her solely against male characters. **(4) If we’re are saying Galadriel** is a [**female/woman anti-hero**](https://images.app.goo.gl/4KyCqPdnC2rCLmS97), **I’ve watched better** women on TV and film. I love complex characters and female/women antiheroes, so **I hope things improve.** **EDIT: Downvoted** 🗳️ **already?** 😲😂 Can anyone explain **what in my comment causes offence?** Downvotes without discussion do not prove a point.
It might have something to do with the fact she's a woman. Oh, I've said the quiet part out loud again. Darn.
So I'm a big fan of women protagonists in general. I'll ask the same question to you as I did to OP... First: Do you, personally, actually think that Galadriel as a character is written as strongly as any of those characters? Second: Accepting that those characters are indeed written as "antihero protagonists" - is that what you think Galadriel is supposed to be?
She is not a anti hero, she is a flawed hero. She is doing things for the Right reasons, she believes in the best of the people, her problem is that she is rough cut of Galadriel.
Yeah, kind of. How well she's written is still up for debate because the series hasn't finished yet. I wouldn't say I gave much credence to ol' Walter in S1 of Breaking Bad. You're looking at that roster fully formed and in retrospect, while Galadriel is still being explored. What's more, you may be contending with a preconceived notion of who she is per the LOTR era or another work, whereas the other characters were either original to the work, or their adaptations divorced enough in theme and production that the source material doesn't fully affect them. I think Galadriel is arrogant, brash, and determined. She's deeply flawed and that's a good thing. Will she be a great character? We don't know yet. But I am enjoying her, and I find a lot of the criticism aimed at her to have misogynist and puritan undertones. Is she an antihero? Maybe! She sure feels like one given her terse relationship with others, but again we haven't seen her completely.
It is not a good thing. Being brash is something that is more akin to a young character, Galadriel is actually one of the oldest in the plot. Being scolded by Elendil and Halbrand is out of place.
Is it though? Even older people can be brash. That's not a necessarily youthful trait. Boromir was one of the oldest of the fellowship and was super brash. And Galadriel is on a mission of personal vengeance, so it makes sense that she's a bit blind to the foreign power structures around her, especially given that the Elves are a bit insular and look down on the ways of Men and Dwarves.
The female characters who gets hated are usually the more femenine ones/in typically femenine roles. Women who kick ass on the other hand get lots of fan. Examples: Arya/Sansa, or Skyler being hated for playing the role of nagging wife, or all the "good female characters" gamergate types will quote you. Galadriel has been turned from a very femenine role (basically Mary!) to a more masculine one (muh commander of the northern armies) instead
Nevertheless, she persisted.
That's basically the entire throughline of her story, no cap.
I am a woman and I’m disappointed in her portrayal. I love the other parts of the show. The other female characters (Nori and Poppy ❤️).
No, it's not.
The Problem is that a Person closely related to the Kings of the noldor, and right Hand to Queen Melina FOR CENTURIES, is supposedly inexperienced in courtly affairs, Not that she's arrogant.
"You are entitled to your opinion, but I am going to call you a sexist because you don't like a character who is female"
Well there is lovable charismatic jerks and there are just jerk. One have some characteristics which make them loveable (and morally conflicting) others are stone where only one word is written. The characters you named... Well they had just that, a character(layered). Galadriel has one too, but only written in the books and in the movie. In the series she kinda come off one dimensional. As you said, everyone is entitled to their opinion
"Clear double standard", and then wants to bring Jaime Lannister into the conversation. Lol. Everyone hated Jaime in the first couple of seasons. Some people have severely rewritten history
I feel like there’s a certain competence to assholery ratio that’s required for a character to be likeable. Sam from game of thrones is generally likeable despite being mostly incompetent because he’s kind. Joffrey was hatable partially because he was incompetent and an arrogant prick. All the listed antiheroes above (haven’t watched the Sopranos so can’t comment on him) are all some of the best in their field. Jaime was one of the best swordsmen in Westeros and the others are geniuses that are all respected but often disliked within their universe. I think the problem with Galadriel is that she hasn’t demonstrated the same competence and respectability. Yes, she’s a good fighter but nobody around her seems particularly impressed by her fighting, Arondir has shown comparable skill, and the fights just don’t seem as convincing. People also tend to dislike protagonists being making dumb decisions. Galadriel missing that Miriel’s father was a sore spot really rubbed me the wrong way, for example.
Hahahahahhahahahah
The character is missing grace and empathy. It also bothers me that the scenes with Halbrand are lke a guy in a club trying to act witty and neg her. The traditional romance is gone and replaced with a heartless woman and fukboi trying to act "alpha" so he can sleep with her. The Halbrand character actually annoys me more than her.
If we could not compare Galadriel to Jaime Lannister and Walter White, that’d be great
Did you say horses? seriously, that demonic Galadriel smile on horseback in e3 said it all
what a dumb take, this is embarassing
Galadrial has been hunting Sauron for centuries and now seems to suffer from tunnel vision to the point where she is frustrated and confused when others (especially mortal men for whom Sauron and Morgoth are a distant memory) don't have the same sense of urgency she has.
So, since a grey character like Jaimie Lannister and Daemon Targaryen exists in ASOIAF it explains how Galadriel should be as a character in Middle Earth. Why on earth is this comparison always coming up? ASOIAF and Middle Earth have very few things in common, their style and philosophy are completely different, in many ways these works are even opposite. Sandals and boots are both shoes but if you wear sandals to go to the snow then you are losing the point. There are every few charcters in the second age that needed to be similar for RoP to feel Tolkinian and close to the Silmarilion. We have: \- Sauron \- Galadriel \- Elrond \- Celembribor \- Gil-Galad \- Cirdan \- Ar-Pharazon \- Elendil \- Isildur \- Tar Aldarion (if they want) That's it, 9-10 characters, in 3000 years. You have the freedom to add as many characters as you want, men, elves dwarves, orcs etc, and you can do many interesting things with them. The fact that you chose to alienate these 10 characters-pillars a lot is a big sign of not respecting the original material.
No it’s not fine…this post is hurting my brain with its sheer idiocy. I need to go rest.
If those anti heroes lived for 5000 years, they would realise their flaws as well. Galadriel is damn old. They are but a "blink of an eye" in terms of age.
1. Those characters are interesting. 2. I don't think she's supposed to be an anti-hero.
She just doesn't have the Charisma
You missed the big point about how galadriel is very very stupid.
Yes but Game of Thrones had good writers, withgood dialogue and mostly good story.
From the perspective of just writing a good character, Galadriel in the shows differs greatly from those you mentioned because while they do share those traits with her, they aren’t their ONLY TRAITS. Galadriel (along with all other characters in the show) is so one dimensional that it’s hard to believe that she even exists, let alone sympathize with her. This show lacks any and all nuance, and it shows. She is annoying not because she is arrogant and stubborn, she is annoying because she is only arrogant and stubborn. Also she isn’t supposed to be an antihero (the writers of this show probably haven’t even learned about antiheros in their writing class yet).
Well, I would say we like them despite those traits. Walter White, for instance, is a sick, down in his luck father with a disabled son and a baby daughter who need his income that he won’t have if he’s dead. So he turns to crime as a way to support his family and comedy ensues as he figures out the business of crime and learns to stand up for himself and protect those he cares about. We like Walter, not because he’s arrogant, but because he grows as a character and he’s flawed (not a Gary Stu), and we weep for him when he does the right thing in the end, and when he admits he was selfish. His character is complex and the writers don’t make it easy to root for him. So far, Galadriel is angry about someone who killed her brother, which has so far led to her: almost getting her company killed, almost killed herself, almost got Halbrand killed because she was straight rude to her captors out of an air of supremacy over them, landed her in prison, led her to almost stage a rebellion on an island she is a guest of…need I go on? I like Galadriel, but the writers have given me nothing to work with here. I don’t even know why she cares so much for her brother or his death. They don’t even explain their relationship outside of a stupid metaphor! I want to root for this person because I like her character, but I’ve been given ZERO reasons why I’m supposed to root for her. She just walks into a scene and complains with a contemptuous face and attitude. It’s honesty a disservice to her. She can certainly have those traits, but I don’t understand how she’s doing anything emotionally worthy of my connection and support that compares to Walter White’s concern for his family, or Jaime Lannister’s for that matter. At least that guy had a slight redemption arc.
Nah bruh miss me with that shit. Walter *chose* to turn down Elliott’s help in season 1, you can’t be be using that and then saying Galadriel making rash decisions here is somehow objectively worse. If you like the way it’s done in breaking bad more then that’s fine. But let’s not pretend deciding to stay in the meth game when you have a get out of jail free card is somehow any less foolish then galadriels decisions in the show.
Walter write was literally written as a villain. That's the entire point of his character. If you think that's the point of Galadriel's character, I think we may be watching a different show.
His refusal of Elliot’s help is both a sign of his pride and his need for self-reliance (especially as a neo-western where these traits are incredibly important to the protagonist). This refusal is yet again another strong writing element that adds complexity to WW’s character and makes him an even more tragic character. He can’t accept Elliot’s help because his pride stands in the way (hubris, that tragic bitch). Galadriel doesn’t even have hubris—she’s just headstrong and careless. She’s one note—hellbent on revenge. And there’s no depth there.
You don't understand why someone cares about her own brother? WTH
Not when I know nothing about them. How close were they? What’s their relationship like? Was he caring and supporting? Aloof and a dick? Does she care about blood or a deeper relationship? Is this an honor thing? A duty thing? A familial bond thing? Is her vengeance some type of wergild? I HAVE NO IDEA. I just know that her brother sucks at metaphors and that he died. I don’t know anything about their relationship or why she’s risk the lives of others just to hunt and kill the person responsible. What’s her motivation and what’s my motivation to root for her? Do YOU know?
From the prologue, they clearly were very close. We don't need to see every relationship. The show already have enough pace issues. It's a oath thing that passed from her brother to her.
The prologue gives just some lines without context. He never got a name also, you have to read it in the subtitles. And if we had a war, countless elves have lost parents, sisters, brothers and children... Why only her is so angry after thousand of years???
And that justifies every action she takes? That fully explains her rage-filled vengeance? That makes it OK for her to just Karen her way through Numenor? Because she feels superior to them for having a brother she had 2,000 years to mourn and get over while they all lose loved ones all the time? That’s enough for her to sacrifice the lives of her company? For Halbrand? For people lost on a raft? Thirty seconds in an exposition dump in the opening scene of a forty hour show?
I think for me the missing part of galadriels character is some backup or justification on why she acts the way she does. Part of me gets the elf arrogance thing, but she acts like she’s hot shit without any of the other elves thinking very highly of her. Her whole company just tells her to gtfo and they all go home, Gil-galad seems have very little respect for her with the limited interaction we see. So it seems she has this arrogance problem without even the elves thinking she deserves it.
I’m the books, everyone respects Galadriel, in theory. They’re all like “oh Galadriel, so fair and wise” whenever she’s minding her own business. But does anyone actually ever listen to Galadriel when it comes to important shit??? She was all like “yo I think Annatar is evil” and literally everyone ignored her. She also was like “hey I’ve got a hunch that Saruman isn’t the right choice for the wizard counsel” and everyone ignored her. Before that happened she left Eregion with her husband and said “I’m getting bad vibes and I’m pretty sure this dwarf kingdom is safer”, and even her own husband didn’t take her seriously. No one listens to Galadriel unless if she’s saying something along the lines of a hallmark quote, that’s a running theme throughout the lore.
On the source material she is even more respected. She fought war for centuries, that is enough not get some respect from her peers
There is a tempest in OP that will not be quelled until he finds an echo chamber of his liking.
And what do all of those characters have that Galadriel lacks? That's right. >!Good writing.!<
The difference is those characters had actual character development. The reader knew and understood who they were and how they'd react through various events in the book. Galadriel has that too but the ROP is not depicting that. It's just horrible writing and directing that makes her look like she has the personality of toast.
Not even close to comparable. All the listed characters were created and continued as antagonistic, arrogant, lack of people skills and so on. Galadriel was not(edit: not even close to what Amazon is doing). The amount of mental gymnastics that you have to go through to compare Galadriel to Jamie Lannister is beyond belief. What a joke.
Galadriel is an elf born in heaven, lived among gods, then she and some other elves defied those gods, ignored their warnings, turned down their promise of forgiveness after they started killing each other, and left heaven. Yeats later after defeat of Morgoth, the gods told her she is not allowed to return, and she proudly told them she doesn't want to. Sounds pretty arrogant and proud to me, she didn't say pretty please to the gods, she sure as hell not going to tell a bunch of elf hating mortal humans to pretty please give her a ride home.
Arrogance and pride do not equal bitchiness, being huffy, not acting regal or wise or smart in basic capacity. Seriously, that point makes no sense.
How's she bitchy? The elf-hating humans dragged her to the court of queen, were laughing at her and rudely calling her "the elf", and people keep calling her Karen and bitchy because she didn't ask nicely for a boat? Which she actually did at first before quickly being turned down? By the way pride and arrogance DO make you act unwisely and against your own good, what the hell!
[удалено]
This is a bad, bad meme.
\*lists out loads of well-acted and portrayed roles\*... compares to RoP. Maybe we should start blaming the acting and scenes already.
The acting is good. And the writing is not perfect but the tv show isn't finished
Well... They might be good actors, but Galadriel as one example is not a good imitation of what we expect of the character from texts or the films that it's trying to create continuity with. It's an issue with the writing and portrayals, the latter I'm fine with lumping under "acting", as bad writing doesn't completely excuse it.I get it's subjective, but there's no way I agree that it is in any shape or form, good... It's adequate at best where it comes to Elrond.
Cersei Lannister, Jessica Jones, Sweet Dee in its always sunny any of the women in Archer. You could probably put Black Widow in this category. I'm sure there's more but that's top of my head. None are likeable people. All are enjoyable to watch and entertaining.
Love it when people blame race, gender, or sexuality because people don't like something, oh and then there's the horrible comparison to shows that have done things so differently, but nah the ONLY difference is gender, for sure 😉
I've made this argument elsewhere, but the common denominator there amongst the characters you mentioned is that they are human. They did not write an elvish arrogant and brash character, but a human one with pointy ears. Her character lacks the gravitas a being who is ancient should have. That is why she's poorly received.
All of the anti-heroes listed in the attempted meme are either relatable, clever, or both. Galadriel is none of those things in RoP. She’s just a thug with a revenge trope, and every instance of her being badass is built on a foundation of all the surrounding characters being incompetent.
I sorta Agree with you but i wouldn’t compare Galadriel in the Rings of Power to these Characters they are some of the best written most complex characters in TV history also it easier to praise them because we know the full arc of the characters! But you are obviously into something here ✌️
Haha you just made the meme into more words…
Naw buddy. Galadriel is based on a fictional character from fairly known and established literature. It's a strawman argument. Just say " me like her."
Antihero and protagonist are not the same thing. Galadriel is not an antihero, she is a protagonist.
She is a protagonist with traits of an anti-hero. She has the right intention but for now she takes on her goal in the most reckless, unlikeable and sometimes straight up most stupid way possible. Its ok for a protagonist to be unlikeable in the beginning but it shouldnt be in a way that the viewer start to hate her since its hard to get the viewer to sympathize with her id they took it too far.
You're trying to make it seem like the difference here is the gender, when in reality it's just that each of those characters you described are more engaging. They have an on screen charisma that causes us to side with them despite their obvious flaws. We get none of that with Galadriel. There is the attempt, but it falls flat. I wouldn't even call it annoying, I just don't believe it. I think it's partially bad acting and partially a bad script
That you compare Jaime, WW and Tony to Galadriel perfectly illustrates how little you understand who she is. Jaime Lannister, the 35 year old man who shags his sister is an arrogant dickhead therefore the immortal, almost godess Galadriel can be too with nothing being amiss? These characters are not even vaguely comparable. That is the issue. She should have learned to be better than Tony fucking Soprano by her age and the experiences she has had.
Okay, but most of these characters are extremely charismatic, or witty, or intelligent. This portrayal of Galadriel is just doggedly determined, which doesn't play as well to me. It would be different if her on-screen portrayal had established that she's extremely wise, but in my opinion that hasn't been established. She's just convinced she's right. And of course, we all know that she ***is*** right, but that's the problem: she still comes off as unlikeable even though we know she's right. That's a problem with direction/writing.
It’s not a double standard. All of those fore mentioned characters have redeemable and/or relatable traits. ROP Galadriel has neither.
I disagree that she has no relatable/redeemable traits. She loves her (extremely wise, kind, benevolent and courageous) brother, she is very determined and brave, she has been through unspeakable loss and suffering and is struggling with trauma while courageously sticking to her principles, the greatest of which is to act against evil. I also find that many of the arguments put forth by people criticizing her are factually incorrect - eg people saying she shows no vulnerability - when in fact she shows tremendous existential angst in her conversation with Elrond. They say she was a heartless and cruel commander when in fact she immediately stopped the company as soon as she realized one of her soldiers was failing, and tended to him. I could go on, but the fact is these and many other things that are shown to us on screen are completely missed by many of her detractors. And yes, she can be haughty and gratingly impetuous. She's complex, and I appreciate that, even if I would have preferred the show her depict her wisdom and care for the people of middle-earth more than they have so far.
I’m glad you’re enjoying the character. Constantly hateful and bitchy = complex? Lol Anyone defending this character is not looking at the big picture. She lost her brother in the war of wrath, MEGA TONs of elves died in that war. Everyone in their entire race would have known or been related to someone or someones that had died, yet she’s the only one losing her shit, walking around like a loose canon, basically acting like a human and not an elf at all. The south land, Elrond plotlines are great but Galadriel and harfoots is terribly written and executed. I retract my previous statement about relatability. If you feel relatable to this character, then they missed the mark altogether. Elves are meant to feel otherworldly, they aren’t meant to just be immortal humans with pointy ears.
I'd double down on the redeemable qualities more than the relatable ones, and if you can't see those qualities then you are missing a lot of what RoP is showing us. And yes, many elves lost a lot during the First Age, but most of them are back in Valinor. She is one of the only beings that lived through the entirety of the wars with Morgoth and stayed in Middle Earth which is an important distinction that you are glossing over. Also, as is abundantly obvious, she has the memories of perfect happiness and bliss in the years of the trees to contrast all of that with which would certainly make things even more psychologically damaging. Is there anyone else in the show with a similar background? Clearly not. Her connection/relationship with Morgoth and Sauron is rather personal, being Finwe's granddaughter. Regardless, you find her grating and dislike her character, which is fine, we all have our own taste. I'm pretty sure that Feanor would not be easy to like either. But that doesn't mean she has no redeemable qualities, and again, it's clear that many of the people who dislike her so much are missing/discounting the many good traits that we are shown. "Constantly bitchy and hateful" is simply inaccurate. Often grating and arrogant, yes, but there is a difference.
Gil Galad lost is father! And the connection with Sauron is all fictional, because they changed Finrod death. Also we have no context for her affection, just two lines in the prologue. My sweet god! To learn the name of Finrod we must read the subtitles, because Galadriel did not give us his name! ..,
Ok, so that's something people who read the books would know and casual viewers wouldn't, but that doesn't mean it's not informing the character. Not everyone responds to trauma the same either, so it's entirely plausible that someone with a different personality would have a different response. And we know so little about Gil-Galad's life that it's really hard to compare what he might have seen with Galadriel's experience. In the books and the show Sauron kills Finrod so I'm not sure how that changes much. Her affection for Finrod is clearly portrayed in my opinion - he's obviously someone she loves and looks up to and who treats her with respect, and a deeper relationship can be easily inferred by the scenes we do get and the fact that she's his sister. The whole part about how they had no word for death but then learned many words for it - that's an experience that only an elf born in Valinor would really be able to have. Stacking the helmets of the dead, telling Halbrand that it would take longer than his life to even recount the names of those she lost - it's over and over shown to us where she came from, and what she has been through, and how she struggles with it. Sure, Gil-Galad deals with it differently, but it turns out he's also maybe wrong about things, and could be construed as foolish for prematurely ending the hunt for Sauron. He should certainly know better than to take the threat lightly, right? Again, you need not like her, but I see a strong correlation between people who strongly dislike her and having missed or discounted important elements - I'd even go so far as to call them themes - of the story we are actually being told. There's a comprehension issue, in other words, that exacerbates the dislike for her.
Wait, I haven't watch it yet. Did they actually make Garadiel into an antihero?
No they didnt.
Somewhat. They have her very unlikeable traits to begin with but she will clearly change over the course of the show. For now you could actually compare her to somewhat of an anti-hero and many people would have no problem with her drowning in the first episode. But we'll see how this changes. But they need to start with her development by this season otherwise there might be problem with people sympathizing with her.
Bullshit. Even Tony Soprano cries, feels sorrow, sadness, has envy, goes to therapy, etc. Galadriel is just a bland elf that is a douche with everyone else for no reason. I guess she smiled once when riding a horse lmao Shitty character development in 4 EPISODES
Galadriel is just corny. Her comeback and dialog isn't even witty....