Rings of Power -- all opinions and spoilers welcome thread.

[Sepulchrave II]

Tolkien's Elves are not...whatever was happening in Jackson's films. They are not airy-fairy, they are Biblical or Shakespeareab figures of strength and tragic flaws.

I don't think we have a single perspective on the Elves. In The Hobbit, they are very much presented as "airy-fairy" - whimsical, treacherous (in the case of the Silvan elves), and scant on any description of their actual appearance.

In the LotR we still only see them through the lens of the Hobbits; they are very much depicted as Other, with their beauty, subtlety, superhuman faculties and insight. We have a sense of the tragedy of the High Elves - and their growing disconnection from Middle-Earth - but we don't have a sense of why; this is evident from the first encounter with Gildor: when he describes himself as an exile, we don't really have any context for that, until we dive (much) deeper into the legendarium. The Hobbits view the Elves with awe and reverence; the Rohirrim with fear and suspicion. Aragorn, despite his undoubted lore, in a sense seems all-too-willing to excuse their past misdeeds; although, he is enamoured of an Elf and was raised in Imladris - so maybe we should take his perspective with a pinch of propagandized salt too.

In The Silmarillion we begin to catch a glimpse of how the Noldor view themselves (and other Elves), but even this is fraught. It is a retelling of an "Age of Myth," suggesting layers of unreliable narration, translation, hyperbole and propaganda; within the context of LotR (or the Red Book of Westmarch), these are "stories from long ago." Again, I think this ambiguity is intentional, even in the earliest drafts by Tolkien (where Ælfwine journeys to Eressëa and learns the "true history" from the Elves), this notion of a dubious transmission is present.

The mythemes and components which comprise Tolkien's Elves draw primarily on the lios alfar and the huldrfolk; the Vanir and the Tuath Dé, overlayed with a Catholic or Biblical sensibility which reflects an increasing separation from God (with an occasional remission or "New Covenant"). In this sense, the Eldar have a quality of sacredness due to their time spent in Aman, whereas Middle-Earth is profane; this does not map perfectly to notions of Good and Evil; again, I think this ambiguity is intentional.

I don't see Shakespeare in Tolkien - at least, no more than Shakespeare has shaped all English literature; even the most tragic story, of Turin, doesn't hold a candle to Lear or Titus Andronicus in terms of its scope, or its willingness to engage with the worst facets of human action and motivation.

So when you assert that the RoP is faithful to the "deeper themes" in Tolkien, I respectfully disagree. I am enjoying the show, for what it's worth. But, for me, the characterization is weak; plot is contrived; dialogue is barely sophomoric with tedious archaisms; the Elves are just uninsightful humans with pointy ears and very prosaic motivations and teenage behavioural issues.

Is Jackson's trilogy more "faithful?" - no, not really. But I enjoyed that too.

 

[Parmandur]

But, for me, the characterization is weak; plot is contrived; dialogue is barely sophomoric with tedious archaisms; the Elves are just uninsightful humans with pointy ears and very prosaic motivations and teenage behavioural issues.

Yeah, beyond just disagreeing, I have no idea how anyone could see the show and think any one of those things. I find this puzzling.

 

[Nikosandros]

Yeah, beyond just disagreeing, I have no idea how anyone could see the show and think any one of those things. I find this puzzling.

And yet several of us share this opinion...

 

[Maxperson]

Is Jackson's trilogy more "faithful?" - no, not really. But I enjoyed that too.

This is where I disagree with you. In the movies we get the sense of wisdom and power from Gildor, Galadriel and Elrond, and we get the sense of their tragedy. They don't have to explain why those things are to capture the essence of what Tolkien's elves were. We get none of that essence in the TV show.

I'm not saying the movies were perfect, but it did do a much better job with the elves than the show.

 

[Maxperson]

They are not airy-fairy

Yes they were. Read the hobbit and the gay(happy) revelry in the Mirkwood, and other moments of song and happiness from them. In-between times of war were times of peace and happiness in existence and life.

they are Biblical or Shakespeareab figures of strength and tragic flaws.

SOME were, yes. And we get that from movie(not show) Galadriel, Celeborn and Gildor, the OLD elves who had the strength and tragedy, of which there were few left in Middle Earth.

The dialog from the Ekves in this show, despite being all original, felt more like the book Elves in tone and delivery, and the absolute psychotic flaws of the Noldor that lead to all the tragedies of the Silmirillion are spot on here in spades.

No. The elves in the show felt weak(other than Galadriel) and incompetent. "I'm Celebrimbor, best elven smith since Feanor, yet I can't even figure out that maybe a mithril alloy might work without the help of a human who is like 30 years old. And despite my age and wisdom, I'm not going to question that this 30 year old human knows more of smithing than a several thousand year old great elven smith. And neither are any other ancient and wise elves."

The show has no elven wisdom, virtually no elven prowess, none of the past elven tragedy other than the death of Galadriel's brother which isn't part of the Tolkien tragedies(Kinslaying, tragic battles, fall of Gondolin, death of Feanor and Fingolfin, etc.), and none of the gaiety of the elves. It lacks everything.

 

[Parmandur]

And yet several of us share this opinion...

Yes, and I cannot account for that based on the show that I watched. It's utterly bizarre.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes they were. Read the hobbit and the gay(happy) revelry in the Mirkwood, and other moments of song and happiness from them. In-between times of war were times of peace and happiness in existence and life.

SOME were, yes. And we get that from movie(not show) Galadriel, Celeborn and Gildor, the OLD elves who had the strength and tragedy, of which there were few left in Middle Earth.

No. The elves in the show felt weak(other than Galadriel) and incompetent. "I'm Celebrimbor, best elven smith since Feanor, yet I can't even figure out that maybe a mithril alloy might work without the help of a human who is like 30 years old. And despite my age and wisdom, I'm not going to question that this 30 year old human knows more of smithing than a several thousand year old great elven smith. And neither are any other ancient and wise elves."

The show has no elven wisdom, virtually no elven prowess, none of the past elven tragedy other than the death of Galadriel's brother which isn't part of the Tolkien tragedies(Kinslaying, tragic battles, fall of Gondolin, death of Feanor and Fingolfin, etc.), and none of the gaiety of the elves. It lacks everything.

Yeah, hard disagree with all of this, again. The scene with Sauron and Celebrimbor was really good, showed a lrexistant Angelic spirit was able to convey information while making the rather clever mark think it was their own idea.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, hard disagree with all of this, again. The scene with Sauron and Celebrimbor was really good, showed a lrexistant Angelic spirit was able to convey information while making the rather clever mark think it was their own idea.

What?! First, that has nothing to do with how Tolkien's elves are. Second, Celebrimbor didn't think that the alloy was his idea at all. He just went with the man's idea.

What in the show showed anything of the essence of Tolkien's elves?

 

[Nikosandros]

Yes, and I cannot account for that based on the show that I watched. It's utterly bizarre.

Perhaps accept that there are legitimate views that can be quite different from yours? I don't find your opinion bizarre, I just disagree with it.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Perhaps accept that there are legitimate views that can be quite different from yours? I don't find your opinion bizarre, I just disagree with it.

I don't think it's a failure to aknowledge different point of views. It might be a genuine lack of understanding because the starting viewpoints are too far apart.

For example, the dialogue. I found some of them cringy. Imagine one found them genius-level of writing. We could "agree to disagree", but maybe at some point the disconnect is so huge that it's difficult to comprehend what one finds cringy and what the other finds good. Providing examples might help illustrate what is only a difference in appreciation. Someone mentionned the bad dialogue, providing an example of a piece of dialogue that is bad and why makes it clearer than just stating opinion.

Let's take the scene where Galadriel remembers her husband. She speaks of him like he's dead to Theo. It's mean if he isn't and she knows it, but let's assume that the show Galadriel lost contact with him during some war and didn't have time to check his status for the last millenia, because she was concentrated on other things. She mentions the last time she saw him in armour. (presumably going to a fight) She makes a comparison that sounded (in French, I didn't see the original lines) hilariously awkward, like a silver-colored oyster or something. That's a comparaison that sounds really like a 6-years old would make. It might be poetic-sounding in English version and be a translational blunder, I don't know, but if I say this scene was hilariously bad, my opinion might be impossible to understand to someone who only saw it as poetic.