Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

[PeregrineFalcon]

20 minutes ago, DougGraves said:

Or is the argument that she did not need a sword so she should not wield one more to do with opposing equity and equality than anything that can be found in the Tolkien writings?

You know exactly what the argument is about. It's about not ruining a beloved IP and wrecking canon by shoving your Current Year Ideology into it.

 

I don't think that anyone really has a problem with Galadriel wielding a sword. The problem is that people are really good at spotting patterns and, to most people, seeing her in armor with a sword says "the Twitter people who've ruined a bunch of other beloved IPs in the name of Current Year Ideology are now going to try to ruin Middle Earth."

 

Now maybe they won't. Maybe it'll have diversity and girl power and still be an awesome series. Buffy the Vampire Slayer was! But the recent history of beloved IPs being wrecked shows that that is pretty unlikely. People who love Middle Earth don't want to see this series go the way of the SW: Rise of the Clownwalker, fem-Doctor Who, or the recently failed Cowboy Bebop series.

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

I was just given a copy of Unfinished Tales (partner's sister works in a bookstore: slightly scuffed cover means the whole thing gets pulped, so I get the odd rescue for free).

 

I daresay that it's not going to be quite like that, because JRR is going full Beowulf in some of these passages, and unless you're going to have your actors declaiming at each other that they're Tuor son of Guor son of Haldor son of Locknstore (etc), you'd need to adapt the dialogue for a modern audience. Heavily.

 

I have a concept I like to bore other writers with called the Believability Curve. No matter what you want to set up, no matter what actor you cast, what twists you want to throw, you can do it, as long as you bring the audience along with you. Throw them into a 90 degree wall, they stop dead: throw them through too many loops and they throw up on you.

 

The question here is can the writers take what an audience knows (including some very very deep fans... nerds... nerds in the deep... they are coming), acquire and preserve the style and tone, and make something new with it.

 

Audiences know Galadriel and vaguely know she's a leader, quasi-immortal, wise and powerful. They don't necessarily know how she became that way. In Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and the notes to Road Goes Ever On, there are stories and notes that she participated in the flight from Valinor as a warrior. 

 

But regardless of whether that source material fully supports it - can you as a writer (and Morfydd Clark as the actress) sell it to an audience and their expectations?

Right now, I'm a little doubtful, but keeping an open mind, and it's going to depend a lot on that opening episode pulling people in. 

 

In any case - speaking as someone who was at risk of being birthnamed Galadriel (it was the 70s, and Mum and Dad were superfans) - even though they are playing with Big Material, it's still not the worst thing that's ever been done with that material.

And definitely not the weirdest.

 

[TheOtherTed]

So I dug around a bit, and found some things that may be relevant to the whole "Galadriel: Warrior Princess" thing.  These are from the "Shibboleth of Feanor," chapter 11 of The Peoples of Middle-Earth, volume 12:

 

"Her mother-name was Nerwen 'man-maiden', and she grew to be tall beyond the measure even of the women of the Noldor; she was strong of body, mind, and will, a match for both the loremasters and the athletes of the Eldar in the days of their youth."

 

"She was proud, strong, and self-willed, as were all the descendants of Finwe save Finarfin; and like her brother Finrod, of all her kin nearest to her heart, she had dreams of far lands and dominions that might be her own to order as she would without tutelage."

 

"...once she had set foot on that road of exile, she would not relent, but rejected the last message of the Valar, and came under the Doom of Mandos.  Even after the merciless assault upon the Teleri and the r--- of their ships, though she fought fiercely against Feanor in defence of her mother's kin, she did not turn back.  Her pride was unwilling to return, a defeated suppliant for pardon; but now she burned with desire to follow Feanor with her anger to whatever lands he might come, and to thwart him in all ways that she could."

 

As I said before - headstrong, wilful, ready to fight, and determined to rule.  Plus she had a vengeance thing going on - so much so as to defy the very Powers of the World in order to give Feanor his due.  Too bad he died before she had a chance to.

 

While I can't find a passage that specifically says she hit anyone with her sword, there are few passages that say that about anyone, especially in the Silmarillion.  Tolkien wasn't exactly an action writer; he seemed largely content to say that people fought, slew, and were victorious, defeated, wounded, or slain.  Yes, there were occasional blow-by-blow descriptions, but they're the exceptions that prove the rule.  Even the body-count game that Gimli and Legolas had going on in The Two Towers (the book, not the movie) was lacking in detail.

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

One more note on this before I hit the hay: one of the things that worries me about it is the expectations from its funders.

Going sideways for a bit: there's a very old (and partially true) story about the guy who turned down the Beatles. He rued his mistake, and once yelled at his A&R guys "don't bring me these damn hippies, get me the next Beatles". At which point either Bowie, Bolan or both were kicked out of his office, depending on who you believe.

 

Ever since Dinklage first said "I drink... and I know things", studios have been looking for the next Thrones. Not just high-fantasy, but epic, eye-catching, oh-goddess-help-me "high engagement" stories that grab eyes and ears.

 

On top of working and reworking a legendary IP, that's a lot of demand for a writer or showrunner to hold up to, and I hope they don't pander to it. The only way to make a series people think is good is to MAKE A GOOD SERIES, not throw tricks and references and meta things in.

 

The only good thing about working for Amazon or Netflix, is that once commissioned, they tend not to interfere as much as a network. There's some back and forth, but it's usually fairly well reasoned. Anywhere else, and that writer's room would have needed an army of Rohirrim to stop a slavering orchorde of producers, studio execs and hangers-on waving toxic Post-Its. For there may come a day, a terrible day, when we may submit to your suggestion of extra sex scenes or comedy dancing Hobbit troupes. BUT IT IS NOT THIS DAY.

Edited February 23, 2022 by ThaOGDreamWeaver

[Haijinx]

One thing that concerns me about faithless adaptions is that they also tend to bomb.  

 

The faithless adaptors almost always adapt out the intangibles that keep the original work appealing.

 

Meaning it will be a very long time before another adaption is considered.

 

It was what, 40 years, between Dune movies?  As an example.  

 

I doubt we will ever get another Wheel of Time adaption.  This current faithless adaption will kill it.  

 

LOTR at least once made a lot of money.  So maybe this new series wont push it back into geekdom obscurity.  Guess it depends on how bad it is.

[TheOtherTed]

7 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

Tolkien was pretty specific here about Eowyn wielding her sword to behead the Nazgul and slay With King.  I do not recall ever reading anything remotely like this about Galadriel.  Saying she "fought fiercely" does not indicate she was decked out in full armor wielding a sword to slay legions of bad guys.  If that is what Tolkien had intended, he would have written it as he did here.

Not necessarily.  Eowyn's battle, and the events leading up to it, were unique.  She was explicitly forbidden from going to war, but went anyway.  She faced off against a Nazgul, not a common soldier.  And she defeated him, something that, by prophecy, no man supposedly was able to do.  It was a significant battle, in terms of her story arc, in terms of bravery in the face of overwhelming fear, in terms of the general plot, and in terms of the importance of old wise words that are handed down from a distant past.

 

In short, it was precisely the sort of exception that proved the rule.  Tolkien had to, and undoubtedly wanted to, write it down in detail.

 

Galadriel fought fiercely, but from the context she was likely one of many fighters who fought many other fighters.  Whomever she specifically fought wasn't significant enough to be worth mentioning (other than that they were in Feanor's retinue).  There was no reason to give a detailed description - for Tolkien's purposes, it's enough to say that she fought to protect her kin.  (On a side note, I said nothing about her "slaying legions of bad guys."  Just that she was willing and able to fight.  Don't put words in my mouth, please.)

 

Now, spellcaster or not, do you think she would have entered battle without armor and without a weapon?  If your assumption is that Galadriel didn't need to because she was a spellcaster, is it not likely that there were plenty of Noldorin lords who could also cast some mean spells?  Would they also have entered battle with nothing but robes and a few tricks up their sleeves?  To me it seems unlikely - if you anticipate a a fight, you're going to gear up for it.

 

I will grant, though, that plate armor and a lack of a shield do stand out.  The plate armor, because Tolkien talks a lot more about chain and scale armor; and the shield because the published Silmarillion specifically says that the Noldor set out with sword, shield, and helm.  I'm also annoyed at the fact that she carries a longsword in the image - but that's more of a Tolkien thing, so I can't blame the producers for that.

 

7 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

It is still the closest we have to Tolkien's own writings.

Not really, no.  Christopher published book after book after book for a reason - his father had written a lot of material that just couldn't captured in the published Silmarillion.  Now, much of Tolkien's own writings are out there, published with as much "authority" as the Silmarillion, and add layers, twists, and other insights into Tolkien's vision that the Sil just doesn't touch.  Unfortunately, Chris also piled them high with dry scholarly stuff and heaps of speculation, so it's not exactly easy (or even pleasant) reading.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by TheOtherTed

[ShardWarrior]

1 hour ago, TheOtherTed said:

Not necessarily.  Eowyn's battle, and the events leading up to it, were unique.  She was explicitly forbidden from going to war, but went anyway.  She faced off against a Nazgul, not a common soldier.  And she defeated him, something that, by prophecy, no man supposedly was able to do.  It was a significant battle, in terms of her story arc, in terms of bravery in the face of overwhelming fear, in terms of the general plot, and in terms of the importance of old wise words that are handed down from a distant past.

 

In short, it was precisely the sort of exception that proved the rule.  Tolkien had to, and undoubtedly wanted to, write it down in detail.

 

Circumstances are irrelevant.  Quite clearly Tolkien had no problem describing characters wielding their swords.  There are plenty of references to find.

 

From the Fellowship of the Ring -

 

Quote

“The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand Glamdring gleamed, cold and white."

...

"From out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming.  Glamdring glittered white in answer. There was a ringing clash and a stab of white fire. The Balrog fell back and its sword flew up in molten fragments."

 

If being armored up and wielding a sword is what Tolkien had intended for Galadriel, it would appear on the pages as such. 

 

1 hour ago, TheOtherTed said:

Christopher published book after book after book for a reason

 

Yes it was called making money.  Christopher was not his father, so I personally will take Tolkien's own writings, no matter how brief, as the closest we will get to Tolkien himself.  Sure, Christopher was privy to all kinds of knowledge the average fan did not have, however the material was still subject to his personal interpretation.

[TheOtherTed]

 The published Silmarillion is not Tolkien's own words. It's Christopher's compilation and summary.  And while money was certainly a big factor, Chris had plenty of unpublished stuff to work with.

 

As for the relevance of circumstance, I can't help but notice that you chose another fight that was a major game changer - not just for Gandalf, but for the Fellowship, for Frodo's later decisions, and possibly even for all Dwarves.

 

[Hyperstrike]

7 hours ago, Haijinx said:

One thing that concerns me about faithless adaptions is that they also tend to bomb.  

 

The faithless adaptors almost always adapt out the intangibles that keep the original work appealing.

 

Meaning it will be a very long time before another adaption is considered.

 

It was what, 40 years, between Dune movies?  As an example.  

 

I doubt we will ever get another Wheel of Time adaption.  This current faithless adaption will kill it.  

 

LOTR at least once made a lot of money.  So maybe this new series wont push it back into geekdom obscurity.  Guess it depends on how bad it is.

Now I can't TOTALLY ding Amazon.  They've done some VERY good stuff.
But this iteration of Tolkien's work feels like:
 

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by Hyperstrike

[battlewraith]

13 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

Please do not virtue signal to push some woke agenda.  Some of my most favorite movie action heroes are characters like Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor.  Questioning why Galadriel is being altered to the degree of making her into Xena Warrior Princess does not make someone a misogynist.  It is utterly ridiculous to even suggest this given the existence of characters like Eowyn in the source material.  Tolkien himself was famous for refuting suggestions of allegory to political themes in his writings.

 

 

But getting triggered over Galadriel behaving like a warrior is odd. The character is thousands of years old and lived through violent times. Is it implausible that she would've picked up some skills as a warrior? Is that a bad sort of thing for a filmmaker to infer for some reason?

 

Well you say that Tolkein didn't write it that way. Ok, but if I remember correctly Tolkein didn't have Arwen whip out a sword and face down the Nazgul who were after Frodo. That was Glorfindel. We didn't get him. We got Arwen instead because Jackson and co. wanted to have more female presence in the movie to appeal to women. Did that ruin the IP? Did it make the film bad.  Where is the nerdrage over that transgression? Particularly when Galadriel is inherently more badass then Arwen.

 

Derivative media like films and miniseries are always going to reevaluate and adapt source material in light of contemporary sensibilities and aesthetics. I still know crusty nerds that are salty that Wolverine in the Xmen movies wasn't an extremely hairy 5' tall man. Tough shit. Nobody wants to see that but them. Most people were very happy with Hugh Jackman. I personally would much rather see an armored warrior Galadriel than than the one in the shitty Hobbit movies who treks all the way over to Sauron's hideout in her robes and the proceeds to flop over and swoon until Elrond and Sarumon show up to fight off the Nazgul. 

 

 

[battlewraith]

 

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

If you scroll up the thread, I did say there were many changes made by Jackson for his films that I objected to.  All based on my personal opinion, some of his edits were ok, some I found were improvements to the story and some were just outright awful.  Changing out Glorfindel with Arwen here is another noteworthy mention.  If you will recall, the writers had also planned on having Arwen show up at Helms Deep to go full Xena mode which drew quite a lot of negative criticism from fans, leading the idea to be totally scrapped by the filmmakers.

 

The key issue is that anyone objecting to these changes to the established lore are being shouted down as misogynists and/or racists by virtue signallers pushing a political agenda.  Sure, there are idiots out there, however most of those I see expressing these concerns are not women hating racists. 

 

Given the lack of source material here, there is plenty of room to create a whole slew of new characters for this series that can interact with and be guided by established characters.  There is a great diversity in the worlds of men that has never been explored much, so why not start there rather than distorting established characters?

 

Yes you may have objected to these changes in the Jackson trilogy, but the point is that those movies were a major success. The Arwen change did not sink it. So why is this glimpse of Galadriel in the teaser such a big deal. It may be the case that the whole thing sucks, but I don't think that's established yet. And I don't think it's a fair criticism in principle given what Jackson got away with. 

 

Regarding the key issue: the agenda here is to appeal more to women and other racial demographics. This is as much a business decision as a political one. Certainly not everyone who wants manly vanilla Tolkein is a woman hating racist. But there is certainly a cottage industry of right wing critics who want to play the victim and stir up outrage over this sort of thing. I think the shouting is aimed at them. And I also think it's part of the business plan--feed the controversy and get people talking about the series. It's like a rap feud for nerds.

 

Why not explore new territory rather than distorting established characters? Because it doesn't pay off. It's very difficult to attract an audience to new creations compared to doing variations of existing ones. Go to a comic convention and look at what artists are selling. Endless variations of existing popular characters.  People respond more to a known entity. Even then there may be problems getting something off of the ground. Look at how huge a hit GOT was, but the planned prequel series never got off the ground.

[ShardWarrior]

 

23 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Yes you may have objected to these changes in the Jackson trilogy, but the point is that those movies were a major success. The Arwen change did not sink it. So why is this glimpse of Galadriel in the teaser such a big deal. It may be the case that the whole thing sucks, but I don't think that's established yet. And I don't think it's a fair criticism in principle given what Jackson got away with. 

 

That is fair.  I never said the series is sunk, rather that I have my reservations about it just as I did with the changes Jackson and crew made for his LoTRO and Hobbit films.  The series may be a smash success, it may not.  From what I can see and have read so far, it is pointing to the latter.  There is no harm in expressing concern nor is there any harm in objecting to changes to established lore.

 

25 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Regarding the key issue: the agenda here is to appeal more to women and other racial demographics. This is as much a business decision as a political one. Certainly not everyone who wants manly vanilla Tolkein is a woman hating racist. But there is certainly a cottage industry of right wing critics who want to play the victim and stir up outrage over this sort of thing. I think the shouting is aimed at them. And I also think it's part of the business plan--feed the controversy and get people talking about the series. It's like a rap feud for nerds.

 

If this is the intent, then the production staff is not going about it the right way by berating fans who question their creative choices.  As for appealing to different demographics, this is proceeding from a very false assumption there are very few women or non-Caucasian fans of the source material to begin with.   Again, there is a vast amount of untapped material out there and opportunity for diversity in the worlds of me with the Haradrim, Easterlings, Northmen etc. 

 

28 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Why not explore new territory rather than distorting established characters? Because it doesn't pay off. It's very difficult to attract an audience to new creations compared to doing variations of existing ones. Go to a comic convention and look at what artists are selling. Endless variations of existing popular characters.  People respond more to a known entity. Even then there may be problems getting something off of the ground. Look at how huge a hit GOT was, but the planned prequel series never got off the ground.

 

This is false too.  Were it true, creators like Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Tolkien, James Cameron and countless others never would have had any success.  Just look at the volume of characters and worlds created by someone like Jack Kirby and the success they have had over the years.  Rehashing/re-imagining/re-booting the same material over and over is stifling creativity and a big part of why most of what is coming out of Hollywood today is utter garbage. 

[ShardWarrior]

18 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Given Hollywood's track record, seems very quaint to be upset about some elves and dwarves of color.

 

So for you it would be perfectly fine to re-cast Black Panther or Falcon as a dwarf of Arabic descent or an Asian and to re-imagine Wakanda as all Chinese? 

[Haijinx]

I don't have any problems with the racial changes that many critics seem to claim. It might make sense from a genetic drift standpoint in LOTR to make all Dwarves or All Elves of African decent, but if they want to do it with the more colorblind approach I suppose that is fine too.  It really doesn't change the story of Lord of the Rings.    

 

I also am generally okay with making sexuality based changes or even a gender flip, as long as it doesn't really affect the plot.  

 

My problems with adaptions are where they change the narrative, plot critical points, and so on in a faithless manner.   If they need to remove less important plot elements because of time, sure that is okay.   If they change the basic story so they can add a bunch of stuff they just made up?  Nah that is faithless. 

[Haijinx]

3 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

So for you it would be perfectly fine to re-cast Black Panther or Falcon as a dwarf of Arabic descent or an Asian and to re-imagine Wakanda as all Chinese? 

 

Black Panther being an African was an integral part of his character.  As was Wakanda being an African country.   For some characters though, it is less important.   Changing Nick Fury into a Black Character for the UltU / MCU didn't seem to change anything other than appearance. 

[battlewraith]

5 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

So for you it would be perfectly fine to re-cast Black Panther or Falcon as a dwarf of Arabic descent or an Asian and to re-imagine Wakanda as all Chinese? 

Lol. I have a background in theater. Gender bending and color blind casting is old hat. One of the best Shakespeare productions I saw was a Julius Caesar set in 14th century Mali with an all black cast. So yeah, if there was an actual compelling artistic rationale for your contrived examples I would be fine with them. It's also hilarious that you think these examples are on a par with anything we've discussed.

[biostem]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

Gender bending and color blind casting is old hat.

Do you really think any theater in their right mind would cast anyone of any race to play MLK, Malcolm X, etc?  Can you show me some recent high profile examples where casting went in the opposite direction?

Edited February 24, 2022 by biostem

[Hyperstrike]

10 hours ago, battlewraith said:

 

But getting triggered over Galadriel behaving like a warrior is odd. The character is thousands of years old and lived through violent times. Is it implausible that she would've picked up some skills as a warrior? Is that a bad sort of thing for a filmmaker to infer for some reason?

 

Well you say that Tolkein didn't write it that way. Ok, but if I remember correctly Tolkein didn't have Arwen whip out a sword and face down the Nazgul who were after Frodo. That was Glorfindel. We didn't get him. We got Arwen instead because Jackson and co. wanted to have more female presence in the movie to appeal to women. Did that ruin the IP? Did it make the film bad.  Where is the nerdrage over that transgression? Particularly when Galadriel is inherently more badass then Arwen.

 

Derivative media like films and miniseries are always going to reevaluate and adapt source material in light of contemporary sensibilities and aesthetics. I still know crusty nerds that are salty that Wolverine in the Xmen movies wasn't an extremely hairy 5' tall man. Tough shit. Nobody wants to see that but them. Most people were very happy with Hugh Jackman. I personally would much rather see an armored warrior Galadriel than than the one in the shitty Hobbit movies who treks all the way over to Sauron's hideout in her robes and the proceeds to flop over and swoon until Elrond and Sarumon show up to fight off the Nazgul. 

 

 

Sorry if I'm uncomfortable with someone hijacking walking around in the skinsuit of a property for their own ideological messaging.

[Hyperstrike]

8 hours ago, battlewraith said:

 

It probably feels like how whitewashing does to non-whites:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewashing_in_film

 

Given Hollywood's track record, seems very quaint to be upset about some elves and dwarves of color.

Primarily because that isn't how Tolkien  wrote the series.
Plain and simple.
If you don't like that people dislike this, please don't attack them.
 

[Hyperstrike]

4 hours ago, Haijinx said:

 

Black Panther being an African was an integral part of his character.  As was Wakanda being an African country.   For some characters though, it is less important.   Changing Nick Fury into a Black Character for the UltU / MCU didn't seem to change anything other than appearance. 

LOTR, all the races addressed, save the Haradrim, were depicted in an fantasy environment meant to be a standin for mythic England.

And simple skin color alone isn't the primary gripe.

It's the swarm and sum total of changes that are off-putting.

[TheOtherTed]

1 hour ago, Haijinx said:

LOTR is not REALLY set in England.

True enough.

1 hour ago, Haijinx said:

Therefore the racial makeup of its people is not actually comparable to say the racial makeup of a story about Malcom X.  Espcially since Malcom X was literally in a racial rights struggle.

Not necessarily true.  The following is a quote from a letter Tolkien sent to Milton Waldman in 1951.  The context is that he was trying to get a version of The Silmarillion published alongside The Lord of the Rings, but the people who published The Hobbit wouldn't do it.  The quote is part of his pitch.

 

"I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing in English, save the impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing"

 

So it's clear that Tolkien had England, specifically, in mind when writing both the Sil and LotR.  The letter can be found in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (edited by Humphrey Carpenter and Christopher Tolkien).  Worth reading, and compared to the stuff Chris has churned out, easily digestible.

[Hyperstrike]

2 hours ago, Haijinx said:

LOTR is not REALLY set in England.

 

Therefore the racial makeup of its people is not actually comparable to say the racial makeup of a story about Malcom X.  Espcially since Malcom X was literally in a racial rights struggle. 

Middle Earth was a fantastical representation for England.
This is commonly accepted Tolkien scholarship.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

Black Panther and Falcon are tertiary characters in a fictional world.  Is it acceptable to recast them as Arabs or Asians or do you honestly believe there would not be an outrage by the fanbase if this were done?

 

You're asking two different questions--is it acceptable? Would there be outrage from the fanbase if this were done?

 

Black Panther and Falcon are not tertiary characters. Black Panther had his own hit movie and Falcon had a miniseries after featuring prominently in the Captain America films. Could changes like that have been done back when they were only in the comics? Maybe. Look at all the variations of Captain Marvel.

 

Acceptable in what sense? 

1. Artistic. Sure why not? There could be some aspect or facet of these characters to be explored by changing their background.

2. Social trends. Probably not. Because major non white superhero characters are few and far between to begin with. Roles for black actors have been very limited historically. Etc.

3. Commercial. Media companies exist to make money. If doing this would make money they would be expected to do it.

 

Outrage from the fanbase is perpetual these days. The fact that major companies like Amazon are swinging towards inclusive casting suggests to me that that is the more commercially viable way to go.

[ShardWarrior]

25 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

The alternatives would be to have her away from the action or doing some cheesy magic use which would also be a departure from how magic is typically portrayed in the ME movies. I would also argue that there was a test case for the non warrior Galadriel in the Hobbit movies and it sucked. She came across as really weak.

 

You must have watched a very different movie than everyone else.  Looks like using magic and not needing a sword and armor worked just fine for her.

 

 

 

 

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

You must have watched a very different movie than everyone else.  Looks like using magic and not needing a sword and armor worked just fine for her.

 

 

 

 

Lol yeah it works when you have Sarumon and Elrond preventing you from being shanked while you lie there gassed out on the ground.