|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junesong
Nargothrond
Apr 11, 11:50am
Post #26 of 36
(52189 views)
Shortcut
|
As a Tolkien fan who has loved (and defended) ROP from the beginning - usually by replying with the same overlarge, venting paragraphs on TORN every few months or so, I agree with most of your post. As my previous post states, I'm not wild about diversity coming first in all things. That's not to say I'm against diversity - I loved all the cast and storylines of ROP and never once found myself scratching my head and wondering why or how a certain person looked a certain way. Who cares?
I didn't even mind the fact that it was a diversity mandate coming top down at Amazon - as well as from every other media creator - as that was clearly a cultural shift that caught up nearly all media for the last almost decade. Business is business and whenever virtue or morality or equality becomes mainstream it also becomes corporate which means it's performed everywhere. Heck, McDonald's toys were getting more diverse. Drinking Pepsi made you more diverse. Etc.
I shrug that off too. As you and I both reflected - just because human nature renders everything somewhat superficial doesn't negate the fact that its a good idea to expand the general gatekeeping around diversity. Awakening ourselves to our own biases is always a good thing. It just doesn't feel as good when we all get the feeling it's mostly decorative.
I do disagree a bit with you about the Professor though. I don't think he was a git about race, for example. He's a man of his time, for sure - but if we evaluate him by the standards of his time we find him to be quite progressive. Even controversially so, at times.
I also disagree with his writing of women. I think Tolkien cared a lot about his women characters and wrote them quite thoughtfully. Some of the best female characters in literature are Tolkienian.
There. I came online to express mild disagreement. *Deep sigh* Now I can rest.
"So which story do you prefer?"
"The one with the tiger. That's the better story."
"Thank you. And so it goes with God."
|
|
|
DGHCaretaker
Nargothrond
Apr 11, 1:49pm
Post #27 of 36
(52028 views)
Shortcut
|
I do disagree a bit with you about the Professor though. I don't think he was a git about race, for example. He's a man of his time, for sure - but if we evaluate him by the standards of his time we find him to be quite progressive. Even controversially so, at times.
Right. It was he, was it not, who lamented industrialization, for example, in the form of Saruman and his devices?
|
|
|
uncle Iorlas
Nargothrond
Apr 11, 2:51pm
Post #28 of 36
(51934 views)
Shortcut
|
There. I came online to express mild disagreement. *Deep sigh* Now I can rest.
We should print a run of t-shirts with this quote, we’d probably clean up.
I’m inclined to let the demographic matters drop there; again, that’s not my concern with the show, and I don’t want it to hijack the thread any more than it already has. (Which I suppose is as much my fault as anyone’s.)
|
|
|
CuriousG
Gondolin
Apr 11, 3:40pm
Post #29 of 36
(51852 views)
Shortcut
|
Both really resonate with me. I saw Apocalypse Now first and really enjoyed it. Much later read Heart of Darkness, and enjoyed it, saw the similarities, and saw the differences too. It didn't ruin the movie for me. Maybe it helped that the movie didn't port the name of the book, but that's minor, and it departed from the source material in too many ways to count.
And oh, the Oz books! I read Frank Baum's stories and really had to shift gears. Enjoyable in a more simplistic way, and though the movie is aimed at children, there's still adult material woven into it, or something more sophisticated anyway.
"Bad writing" is a term often abused in fan forums, as in "I wanted Luke Skywalker to marry Princess Leia. It didn't happen because of bad writing!" >> Just because a fan is disappointed, it's not bad writing.
Oh, we're discussing Rings of Power?  I thought Archestratie summed it up well. I would add Arondir being stabbed and left for dead, but looking just fine next time we see him, or Galadriel falling off a cliff and not dying on impact, as bad writing. Elves may be hardier than Men, but this is beyond belief.
|
|
|
Junesong
Nargothrond
Apr 16, 3:01pm
Post #30 of 36
(28734 views)
Shortcut
|
A long time ago, way back at the beginning of this thread I promised to come back after my Season2 rewatch and discuss some specific examples of "Bad Writing" in ROP.
I have completed episode 1 and so here I am to weigh in on one small, specific example of what I would consider "Bad writing"
First - and as briefly as possible - what do I mean by bad?
I would say that "good" writing is usually invisible. We are lost in a good story and time passes without us realizing. The plot, the characters, the dialogue, the story beats all move passed us without comment and all click into place and make sense and perhaps even leave us on the edge of our seats, or weeping, or laughing or all three.
"Bad" writing, like "Great" writing, often becomes noticeable. It sticks its head out. All of the "Great" writing I've been privileged to read/watch/experience has had that same effect. My brain has flagged a moment and thought, "damn... that's great writing!" I can almost see the writer hunched over their typewriter for a second and I'm impressed! I don't need to list examples here - this stuff is pretty personal - but Bartlett's rant to God in the West Wing episode Two Cathedrals (2001) stands out in my mind. (But hey - I love Aaron Sorkin, and others find him irritating and cringey)
The example from Season 2, Episode 1 that I want to flag and talk about is Galadriel and Elrond's horse race to Lindon with the rings.
I'm guessing the purpose of this scene was to show that they vehemently disagree about the rings. Elrond things they are tainted by Sauron and should not be touched or used. Galadriel wants to talk about their benefits.
The show is trying to show conflict. It also seems to want a beautiful, scenic semi-action moment to start the season. There's also an element of mystery as we try to figure out why they are racing. Soon, we're shown the jingling bag of rings on Elrond's horse and realize what's up. Galadriel lunges at the rings a few times and eventually Elrond has to lose her by taking a different path at the last minute. It's not a very interesting scene - and it seems to go on a long time.
Why am I accusing this of "Bad writing" - instead of just a choice I don't agree with? Let's break it down.
There are so many ways they could have communicated the information they were trying to communicate. For example, there is nothing accomplished in the horse race that isn't better accomplished a few minutes later in their conversation with Gil Galad. (That conversation is also pretty weak but I want to try to stay focused)
Ironically - the show is employing the old "good writing" adage of SHOW don't TELL by putting them in a literal and physical conflict rather than having them just argue with words. But it feels cheap and silly in the context because it requires us to turn off our brains.
How long have they been riding horses beside each other? All the way from Eregion to Lindon? That means they've stopped, eaten, rested, slept and continued racing in the same manic manner? (I know the show doesn't care much about time passing during travel - and neither did the Hobbit movies, and neither do I really - but in this case it makes the urgency of their race kind of ludicrous.)
Finally - and most egregiously - the conflict ROP is trying to show is cheapened by the characters motivations being unclear and inconsistent. Galadriel spent the whole first season trying to ring the alarm about Sauron with no one believing her. Now SHE'S the one trying to defend Sauron's rings? We are told again and again that Galadriel and Elrond are old friends who trust each other - they even make a new pact of trust at the end of S1. But the first time we see them in the new season they're in conflict and Galadriel's position seems inconsistent and nonsensical. Even her reluctance to answer Gil Galad's questions about Halbrand seem strangely out of character - as she was shouting from the rooftops that he shouldn't be trusted at the end of S1.
All of this to say - with all the creative choices left open to them they seemed to choose the weakest and most obvious way to show conflict without thinking through any nuance or power or effect. Imagine all the cool ways they could have illustrated this conflict - especially if they want to show the rings having a subtle corrupting influence on the Elves.
OK - I'm done. Does anyone agree with me here?
(In fairness to the show - I thought the prologuey part about black gooey Sauron was an awesome way to start things off! It makes the horse race seem even weaker and more forced by comparison)
"So which story do you prefer?"
"The one with the tiger. That's the better story."
"Thank you. And so it goes with God."
|
|
|
DGHCaretaker
Nargothrond
Apr 16, 3:18pm
Post #31 of 36
(28615 views)
Shortcut
|
OK - I'm done. Does anyone agree with me here?
Of course. Could you imagine any differently? ;)
The writer isn't smart enough to write Elrond who is profoundly stupid here. If I were Elrond, I'd put the damn rings in an inside pocket. Is he just out to tease and taunt Galadriel with jingly things? And she's dumb enough to fall for it? Just make a dramatic leap across horses and take Elrond down to the ground to get all tangled up in each other in a passionate embrace. At least that would earn the kiss later. Yeah, see, I can write just as well as they can...
|
|
|
DwellerInDale
Nargothrond
Apr 16, 6:06pm
Post #32 of 36
(27456 views)
Shortcut
|
Here are a few thoughts:
Minor Nitpick: you assume that Galadriel and Elrond have ridden together from Eregion. Why? It would make much more sense for Elrond to have taken the rings by himself (engendered by his feeling of distrust, as shown in the Season 1 finale) and set out alone for Lindon, and thus the scene opens when Galadriel has just about caught up with him.
How long have they been riding horses beside each other? All the way from Eregion to Lindon?
Major Nitpick: You state that the characters' motivations are unclear, primarily because Galadriel was warning against Sauron all during Season 1, but now she is "trying to defend Sauron's rings". But wait-- she believes in her heart (and says so in so many words later in the episode) that the Three were untouched by Sauron. Elrond believes differently, hence the conflict, and hence the drama. Her motivation for not telling anyone, even Elrond, that Halbrand was actually Sauron was due to her fear of the other elves' reaction (which is borne out by Elrond's behavior). Regarding her reluctance to inform Gil-Galad that Halbrand was Sauron, we have the same motivation. Galadriel is in a dilemma: the Three Rings could save her people, but telling him how the rings came to be made would expose how she was deceived ("They cast you out for deigning to ask for a few petty soldiers. What will they do when you tell them that Sauron lives because of you?").
Galadriel spent the whole first season trying to ring the alarm about Sauron with no one believing her. Now SHE'S the one trying to defend Sauron's rings?
Don't mess with my favorite female elves.
(This post was edited by DwellerInDale on Apr 16, 6:06pm)
|
|
|
DGHCaretaker
Nargothrond
Apr 16, 6:23pm
Post #33 of 36
(27318 views)
Shortcut
|
Here are a few thoughts:
Minor Nitpick: you assume that Galadriel and Elrond have ridden together from Eregion. Why? It would make much more sense for Elrond to have taken the rings by himself (engendered by his feeling of distrust, as shown in the Season 1 finale) and set out alone for Lindon, and thus the scene opens when Galadriel has just about caught up with him.
I won't analyze the why, but the question clearly exists. If it were important, good writing would make it clear. It's analogous to establishing shots.
|
|
|
Junesong
Nargothrond
Apr 16, 7:33pm
Post #34 of 36
(26769 views)
Shortcut
|
I think your points are good and I stand corrected - especially about the first point. I like that idea a lot.
I also agree with DGH, however. I think good writing wouldn't be so ambiguous or so conspicuous.
"So which story do you prefer?"
"The one with the tiger. That's the better story."
"Thank you. And so it goes with God."
|
|
|
Aunt Dora Baggins
Elvenhome
Apr 17, 3:33pm
Post #35 of 36
(18378 views)
Shortcut
|
Every line people remember from Wizard of Oz is original to the movie. The book simply isn’t that well written.
I read all 14 Oz books out loud to my kids more than once (I also read LotR to them.) I read them every few years even now. I love the movie, but I love the books more. Here's one of my favorite bits of dialogue from the third book:
Princess Languidere: "Tell me, are you of royal blood?"
Dorothy: "Better than that, Ma'am. I'm from Kansas!"
Book Dorothy is spunky and takes no prisoners.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GNU Terry Pratchett
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For DORA BAGGINS in memory of a LONG correspondence, with love from Bilbo; on a large wastebasket. Dora was Drogo's sister, and the eldest surviving female relative of Bilbo and Frodo; she was ninety-nine, and had written reams of good advice for more than half a century."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A Chance Meeting at Rivendell" and other stories
leleni at hotmail dot com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
DGHCaretaker
Nargothrond
Apr 17, 7:15pm
Post #36 of 36
(18134 views)
Shortcut
|
Book Dorothy is spunky and takes no prisoners.
One of my fav/memorable dialogues:
Lou Grant (Ed Asner): "You know what. You've got spunk."
Mary Richards (Mary Tyler Moore): Smiles. "Well, yeah..."
Lou Grant: "I hate spunk!"
|
|
|
|
|
