@too-old-for-this said in Good TV:
I'm sorry, but Frodo is largely a walking husk throughout the movie. He's very much not dynamic or quoted. I won't say he's uninteresting, I don't know that there's an uninteresting character in Tolkien.
I found Frodo a lot more interesting than Legolas.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@ganymede I didn't say he was uninteresting. In fact, I say the exact opposite in the part you quoted. I said he's largely a walking husk, and he is. Its true that Legolas has fewer lines (hearing Orlando Bloom talk about it still makes me laugh), but he's still a more dynamic character. He does more.
Frodo, in large part, is literally just the Ringbearer. Things are done to and around him.
@too-old-for-this said in Good TV:
Frodo, in large part, is literally just the Ringbearer. Things are done to and around him.
I don't find Legolas dynamic at all; rather he, like Gimli, are caricatures and tropes. Rather, like the other hobbits, Frodo undergoes a profound change from the start to the finish, and, to me, that's more interesting to read in the books and watch on the screen.
And that is also by calculation. I agree that Tolkien uses Frodo as the vehicle to carry the story forward. But I didn't find him static and he wasn't a husk to me.
Elves are boring as fuck, but pretty to look at. By calculation, of course.
@too-old-for-this said in Good TV:
Frodo is largely a walking husk throughout the movie
Merry and Pippin are the true stars of that series.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
@derp You misspelled Sam.
Everyone here's misspelling "Fellowship".
Arguably I think the closest example the saga has to a "Chosen One" is Strider/Aragorn, who even gets the girl after transforming from unassuming Ranger to King of all Mankind.
But what makes LotR special is that it doesn't really have one saviour/chosen-type character; it has an ensemble cast and no character within it is really capable for independently leading the charge on every front, of solo clearing every obstacle, of beating up every bad guy in every scenario alone. Frodo's pretty useless as a character and every training montage he endures only further weakens his resolve, his bravery, his moral virtue and his physical condition to the point where he ultimately fails his final test of making a heroic sacrifice, instead choosing the temptation of power. While we understand this isn't really his fault and that he held out better than most would, I would still argue this is in direct contradiction to the standard protagonist/chosen arc. Yet true, he alone had the ability to bear the ring for so long, whereas even someone like Aragorn (especially someone like Aragorn) could not. The thing is, everyone in that Fellowship has something they alone can do, and many things they simply cannot do.
This kind of narrative is by and large sorely lacking in Western culture IMO — it represents a kind of communal heroism rather than that of a lone individual. It celebrates diversity, perhaps not in the modern sense of identity, but of skill and thought. That many people together, albeit each with their many flaws, can accomplish a task no one could accomplish alone, even when their involvement isn't immediately obvious. (Aragorn & Co. serve to distract Sauron in order to give Frodo, Sam and Gollum a better chance to get the ring to Mount Doom. The quest's glory isn't theirs directly, but they're nonetheless integral to its success behind the scenes.)
I'm not religious by any stretch, but imagine Tolkien's Catholic faith had a lot to do with this, as did his lower class upbringing and wartime experiences.
@kestrel This is my favorite topic. Let's debate it more!
An underlying theme in all of Lord of the Rings - to the point of it being explicitly brought up on multiple occasions by Gandalf and Galadriel - is that the fight between good and evil isn't really determined by mighty warriors but by everyday people stepping up in whatever capacity they have to defend their friends and communities.
It's for that reason that Sauron isn't defeated in some final showdown against Aragorn or Gandalf. In fact in the movies they debated that (and shot the scene, it's on youtube!) but then - correctly - realized it was unthematic. The hobbits are the true heroes; it was these complete nobodies' journey, hardships and sacrifice that brought down the Enemy.
Sam embodies all of this. He was no prophesized figure. He didn't come from a storied lineage. He didn't inherit a Ring of Power. The dude was into landscaping, he dug holes in the dirt for a living in a backwater village his whole life.
Sam, also, by the end of the story carried the fate of Middle Earth solely on his shoulders. He fended off the most corruptive power in existence that brought down Numenorian Kings and was feared by Maia and Noldor Elf Queens for its seductive properties to help his friend. He fought ancient spidery horrors in freakin' Mordor. The dude was hardcore. He was also a fucking gardener.
And at the end of it all he went back to gardening. What a madlad. Like... Grey Havens? Going to Valinor? Living like a goddamn hero in Gondor? Nah, he just planted trees, raised a family and, you know, had a good life until he passed away from old age.
I don't think it's even close who the hero in this tale was.
@kestrel If you enjoy reading about that thesis, you might enjoy a book called The Great Derangement by Amitav Ghosh (who argues that the relative dearth of those kinds of stories in western culture has left us unprepared for grappling with climate change). One of the most interesting books I’ve read in recent memory.
I haven't played the video games, but I can imagine they probably work for the same reason the show works. You have a Gary-Stu protagonist who, aside from delivering on male fantasy aspects (strong, muscly, doesn't afraid, all women melt for him) has no real personality or motivations aside from sitting on the fence a lot. He travels from place to place killing monsters, which allows for a flexible narrative introducing all kinds of funner characters and scenarios along the way. I don't think he's interesting and I don't think he's meant to be. The pilot snagged me precisely because it presented a compelling choice through his neutrality without needing to alienate anyone who would feel strongly about either possibility.
Yes. That's exactly why the games work, especially in Witcher 3 where they went open world. They made excellent work at making you feel like a professional monster hunter that has no personal investment in most of the things you get pulled into while meeting lots of interesting characters and being a neutralish party in their stories. Geralt himself doesn't really have anything going on aside from his family of sorts.
They leaned into it by rather then just having you go places and kill monsters, you first haggle over how much you're supposed to get paid, then you track the monster, learn about the monster, get an opportunity to prepare poisons and potions for that specific monster etc which makes an interesting contrast against more heroic stories.
This kind of narrative is by and large sorely lacking in Western culture IMO — it represents a kind of communal heroism rather than that of a lone individual. It celebrates diversity, perhaps not in the modern sense of identity, but of skill and thought. That many people together, albeit each with their many flaws, can accomplish a task no one could accomplish alone, even when their involvement isn't immediately obvious. (Aragorn & Co. serve to distract Sauron in order to give Frodo, Sam and Gollum a better chance to get the ring to Mount Doom. The quest's glory isn't theirs directly, but they're nonetheless integral to its success behind the scenes.)
It's a bit of a shame and almost weird how as copied as all the other aspects of Tolkiens work are, almost all of them abandon the communal heroism in favor of more straight chosen one narratives.
What is obvious to you may not be obvious to me and vice versa.
A first trailer for The Sandman just came out. This looks good!
I certainly hope they tie it into Lucifer.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
I certainly hope they tie it into Lucifer.
It doesn't seem likely, as they have their own Lucifer cast and everything. I haven't gotten around to watching the Lucifer show, but from the outside it often seemed like its connection to the original source material was fairly tenuous, whereas the Sandman show looks like it's planned to be a fairly faithful adaptation. It doesn't really seem like a setup ripe for crossover.
Midnight Mass on Netflix was...something.
It's very reminiscent of Salem's Lot, in that it's about a spooky vampire and a small town. The atmosphere of dread is palpable and there are some very creepy and eerie moments in it that make it worth the watch I think.
Sorta comes apart on the last episode, and the ending is...eh, but still. Some great character moments, and I really appreciated it overall.
It doesn't seem likely, as they have their own Lucifer cast and everything. I haven't gotten around to watching the Lucifer show, but from the outside it often seemed like its connection to the original source material was fairly tenuous, whereas the Sandman show looks like it's planned to be a fairly faithful adaptation. It doesn't really seem like a setup ripe for crossover.
I know, but I like hoping for things, even if they are highly unlikely.
It's a bit of a shame and almost weird how as copied as all the other aspects of Tolkiens work are, almost all of them abandon the communal heroism in favor of more straight chosen one narratives.
That aspect of Tolkien's work (along with Frodo failing at the end and Sam--who also would have failed had he been in Frodo's position--rescuing him) requires a very deeply rooted sense of humility that runs counter to modern popular sensibilities. It's rare to find it outside of very serious humanist, philosophical or religious adherents.
ETA: tl;dr America's "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" style of capitalism is diametrically opposed to the communal responsibility/heroism in question.
It's a bit of a shame and almost weird how as copied as all the other aspects of Tolkiens work are, almost all of them abandon the communal heroism in favor of more straight chosen one narratives.
That aspect of Tolkien's work (along with Frodo failing at the end and Sam--who also would have failed had he been in Frodo's position--rescuing him) requires a very deeply rooted sense of humility that runs counter to modern popular sensibilities. It's rare to find it outside of very serious humanist, philosophical or religious adherents.
It's for the same reason that people continue to draw unsuccessful parallels between Tolkien's characters and other 'similar' ones in fiction.
No, Gandalf wasn't a powerful Wizard because he cast fireballs. Aragorn or Legolas were no one-man armies, either, despite their movie feats.
Hell, the Ring itself didn't have impressive feats on its own - not the catchy type; it couldn't make its wearer invulnerable, give them flight or shoot laser beams. Same as Saruman's 'voice' it made the wielder extremely manipulative, and even that not in a direct 'mind control' kind of way.
Does that mean they were less impressive than their average D&D equivalents? I laugh at the notion.
It's rare to find it outside of very serious humanist, philosophical or religious adherents.
Or Etheria.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
Ha. Yeah, fair, but I'd say that's part of what made SPOP so phenomenal. Even AtLA didn't have it, really.
Wouldn't be surprised if it pops up more often in children's shows.
That may be why I prefer TLOK over ATLA.
@ganymede I didn't say he was uninteresting. In fact, I say the exact opposite in the part you quoted. I said he's largely a walking husk, and he is. Its true that Legolas has fewer lines (hearing Orlando Bloom talk about it still makes me laugh), but he's still a more dynamic character. He does more.
Frodo, in large part, is literally just the Ringbearer. Things are done to and around him.
