Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

[McAvoy]

Something that regularly throws me off when watching US-movies and serials in particular, is the sound-mixing. Music and especially sound-effects are of such a high volume, that I regularly have to adjust the volume between scenes of normal conversation and anything even remotely action-related, so as not to prompt my neighbours complaining about the noise.
This usually gets adjusted quite nicely in the german dubs, where spoken language tends to get emphasized a bit, making the overall volume curve much more smooth. Here however, this completely fails. It's annoying to the max in episode 6, as there's several battle-scenes intermixed with quiet conversations, so I switched to the US-dbu for comparison and it only got worse. Why is that? What's with the US' obsession of being blasted by loud noises all the time?

As a USian it drives me up the wall too. I basically always need subtitles on for anything Hollywood, the dialogue is so quiet compared to everything else.

I have been noticing that too lately. Like how many times I have to drop the volume on action scenes and big epic sweeps of scenery and then turn it up real high so I can hear the dialogue.

I only started to notice this in past year.

[stryke]

Finally got round to finishing the series, and oof, not great. I didn't expect much at all out of this or House of the Dragon, but where that show proved me wrong and I was thrilled that it did so, this basically fell flat. You might as well just stick on the Peter Jackson films on instead as pretty much every other minute this show will refference a line or shot to the point it became utterly maddening.

Also giving Galadriel's line from her temptation ofthe ring about her own ambitions and where they have led her to Sauron is so messed up and stupidly regressive. You've taken a female character and made her inner conflict so it's now entirely about a man instead.

[Frustration]

Galadriel is utterly unrecognizable. She's not only unlike herself in the LotR era, but unlike the version who chose to leave Valinor; her motivations are totally different. She was highly ambitious, and believed that she would never become ruler of her own domain in the Blessed Lands, so set out to establish a dominion in Middle Earth.

This version is entirely concerned with men, albeit her brother and her mortal enemy.

[clearspira]

Yeah, Galadriel is funny in this. Absolute Bechdel test failure, and yet I get the impression that wasn't intentional. I think they tried to move her away from being a mage into a "I am woman, hear me roar" swordswoman, but then just... didn't give her a story?

Writers be they male or female just cannot write strong women well. I am convinced of this now. They either become paragons of excellence like Rey or faux action girls. Were Ripley, Sarah Connor and Buffy lucky mistakes or what?

[stryke]

Were Ripley, Sarah Connor and Buffy lucky mistakes or what?

I now have the one of these is not like the others song stuck in my head

I don't think the first two were lucky mistakes at all. Terminator, Alien, and Aliens are three of the best films period, while T2 isn't quite on that level it's still pretty spiffy, and so that they also have a female main character, they could not be that good if their lead character wasn't equally as good. They're both triumphs of acting, writing, direction, and editing so I don't think luck had anything to do with it.

Buffy alas is rather tainted by retrospect, but even at the time I wouldn't have included her in that list. It's a rare ep of Buffy where I'd say that Buffy was my favourite thing about the episode. Maybe the opener of season 3, which to be fair SMG was excellent in that one, and that'd likely be about it.

[Frustration]

Alien was written with only the character's last names used, so they had no genders attached. Ripley wasn't originally a woman, or a man - the makers just thought it would be interesting to cast a woman in the role. The characterization is truly neutral.

Aliens is the more impressive example of writing a strong woman, because Ripley was an established character. They made her smart, and nurturing, and competent. And dangerous as a mother bear.

[Lazerlike42]

Were Ripley, Sarah Connor and Buffy lucky mistakes or what?

I don't think they were lucky at all - I just think modern Hollywood has no idea how to approach women - and, often, all sorts of other things.

It would be impossible to overstate the influence that the television and film of the mid 80s-mid 90s had on my worldview. Growing up in that era, TV and movies taught me that women could do the same things as men, that racism was wrong, that racism/sexism is still a problem today, that those with power had to stand up for those without, and all sorts of other things. I didn't get this from my family. I got a little of it from school, but honestly I wouldn't even say that much. The vast, vast majority of it came from films and, especially, from television.

The thing is, while these were themes that were absolutely featured here and there in the programming of the day, they weren't exactly in your face. They weren't ubiquitous, ever-present, etc. They were noticeable at times, and you could tell the people working on the shows thought these things were important, but they weren't all encompassing in the way that these themes often can be today.

Today these ideas are a major point of emphasis for the entire industry. They're featured in media to a degree they never were back then, but today's stuff just isn't nearly, nearly as compelling. I think in some ways it even pushes some people in the opposite direction. The bottom line is that stuff was done better back then in general so that, for instance, I grew to feel anger at racial prejudice far, far more from one or two episodes of Family Matters even though the rest of the series treated it like it didn't exist, than I ever do a with modern series where they are trying to teach morals about prejudice every episode.

I could speculate on the reasons why, but I think for now I'll just leave it at that.

As far as the "strong woman" thing goes, I will say that it seems to me that over the past decade or so there has been a trend whereby the entertainment industry only knows how to try to make a woman strong by giving her all the worst characteristics of what some might call toxic masculinity. I'd argue that it actually betrays a real sexism on the part of a lot of the very people who superficially push for better representation of women. It's like the only thing they think of when they think of strength is a traditional male archetype and they can't conceive of other ways that a person (female or male) can be strong. Without intending to get too dramatic, it's like they don't see strength women who exhibit it in the ways that Sarah Connor did, or Edith Bunker, or Hermione Granger or Claire Huxtable or Mon Mothma or any number of other characters over the years who were all different but all strong characters in multiple senses of the word. Heck, look at Mulan, who showed great inner strength in a whole lot of ways despite not being - at least initially - gifted in any martial sense, but who in the modern version is just this great warrior of unparalleled ability. That's all the industry can even think about anymore.

[McAvoy]

Were Ripley, Sarah Connor and Buffy lucky mistakes or what?

I don't think they were lucky at all - I just think modern Hollywood has no idea how to approach women - and, often, all sorts of other things.

It would be impossible to overstate the influence that the television and film of the mid 80s-mid 90s had on my worldview. Growing up in that era, TV and movies taught me that women could do the same things as men, that racism was wrong, that racism/sexism is still a problem today, that those with power had to stand up for those without, and all sorts of other things. I didn't get this from my family. I got a little of it from school, but honestly I wouldn't even say that much. The vast, vast majority of it came from films and, especially, from television.

The thing is, while these were themes that were absolutely featured here and there in the programming of the day, they weren't exactly in your face. They weren't ubiquitous, ever-present, etc. They were noticeable at times, and you could tell the people working on the shows thought these things were important, but they weren't all encompassing in the way that these themes often can be today.

Today these ideas are a major point of emphasis for the entire industry. They're featured in media to a degree they never were back then, but today's stuff just isn't nearly, nearly as compelling. I think in some ways it even pushes some people in the opposite direction. The bottom line is that stuff was done better back then in general so that, for instance, I grew to feel anger at racial prejudice far, far more from one or two episodes of Family Matters even though the rest of the series treated it like it didn't exist, than I ever do a with modern series where they are trying to teach morals about prejudice every episode.

I could speculate on the reasons why, but I think for now I'll just leave it at that.

As far as the "strong woman" thing goes, I will say that it seems to me that over the past decade or so there has been a trend whereby the entertainment industry only knows how to try to make a woman strong by giving her all the worst characteristics of what some might call toxic masculinity. I'd argue that it actually betrays a real sexism on the part of a lot of the very people who superficially push for better representation of women. It's like the only thing they think of when they think of strength is a traditional male archetype and they can't conceive of other ways that a person (female or male) can be strong. Without intending to get too dramatic, it's like they don't see strength women who exhibit it in the ways that Sarah Connor did, or Edith Bunker, or Hermione Granger or Claire Huxtable or Mon Mothma or any number of other characters over the years who were all different but all strong characters in multiple senses of the word. Heck, look at Mulan, who showed great inner strength in a whole lot of ways despite not being - at least initially - gifted in any martial sense, but who in the modern version is just this great warrior of unparalleled ability. That's all the industry can even think about anymore.

See bolded text. Mon Mothma. This isnt the first time I seen someone use this character as an example of a strong woman. But I have to point out that in the movies she hasn't shown any sort of thing that would remotely put her in the same category as Sarah Conner or Ellen Ripley. She is a background character at best even if you take into other media to account.

But I do agree with the modern interpretation of the strong woman in movies. In that for some reason to be a strong woman they have to strongly resemble the male version that perhaps they were meant to subervert.

Let's be honest, a 120 pound soaking wet woman is no match even if 100% muscle packed and no fat and highly skilled for a man two or three times her size that is also highly skilled. A single hit from that sort of man would seriously debilitate the likewise skilled woman.

But that is the physical part of it. Think about the actual characteristic part of that character. Riplet was done incredibly well because ultimately the character was written just as a human, not a male and not a female. Just a human trying his or her best to fight and eventually escape from the nightmare alien on the ship.

[McAvoy]

Terminator Dark Fate. Ignore everyone in the film but the new John Conner. Dani Ramos. The actress is literally barely over five feet tall at 61 inches tall. Yet she is supposed to be protrayed as a leader equal to John Conner. Hate to say it but height does matter. Which is why you really don't see short men in these sort of roles. Imagine in the beginning of Terminator 2 we see a John Conner who is full head shorter than everyone else looking through those binoculars. It would be almost funny.

But some how this Dani Ramos is supposed to be the equivilant of him for her own timeline. Five foot one inch tall. The movie doesn't really portray her as that. But hey she will grow into it.

But the movie basically tells you that she will be that sort of bad ass leader. But never shows it. They could have gone a different route showing maybe she has leadership abilities or charisma. Like maybe gathering a bunch of people for the final battle to take on the new Terminator. Nope she is basically written as combo Sarah Conner/John Conner.

[clearspira]

Were Ripley, Sarah Connor and Buffy lucky mistakes or what?

I don't think they were lucky at all - I just think modern Hollywood has no idea how to approach women - and, often, all sorts of other things.

It would be impossible to overstate the influence that the television and film of the mid 80s-mid 90s had on my worldview. Growing up in that era, TV and movies taught me that women could do the same things as men, that racism was wrong, that racism/sexism is still a problem today, that those with power had to stand up for those without, and all sorts of other things. I didn't get this from my family. I got a little of it from school, but honestly I wouldn't even say that much. The vast, vast majority of it came from films and, especially, from television.

The thing is, while these were themes that were absolutely featured here and there in the programming of the day, they weren't exactly in your face. They weren't ubiquitous, ever-present, etc. They were noticeable at times, and you could tell the people working on the shows thought these things were important, but they weren't all encompassing in the way that these themes often can be today.

Today these ideas are a major point of emphasis for the entire industry. They're featured in media to a degree they never were back then, but today's stuff just isn't nearly, nearly as compelling. I think in some ways it even pushes some people in the opposite direction. The bottom line is that stuff was done better back then in general so that, for instance, I grew to feel anger at racial prejudice far, far more from one or two episodes of Family Matters even though the rest of the series treated it like it didn't exist, than I ever do a with modern series where they are trying to teach morals about prejudice every episode.

I could speculate on the reasons why, but I think for now I'll just leave it at that.

As far as the "strong woman" thing goes, I will say that it seems to me that over the past decade or so there has been a trend whereby the entertainment industry only knows how to try to make a woman strong by giving her all the worst characteristics of what some might call toxic masculinity. I'd argue that it actually betrays a real sexism on the part of a lot of the very people who superficially push for better representation of women. It's like the only thing they think of when they think of strength is a traditional male archetype and they can't conceive of other ways that a person (female or male) can be strong. Without intending to get too dramatic, it's like they don't see strength women who exhibit it in the ways that Sarah Connor did, or Edith Bunker, or Hermione Granger or Claire Huxtable or Mon Mothma or any number of other characters over the years who were all different but all strong characters in multiple senses of the word. Heck, look at Mulan, who showed great inner strength in a whole lot of ways despite not being - at least initially - gifted in any martial sense, but who in the modern version is just this great warrior of unparalleled ability. That's all the industry can even think about anymore.

Yep. A large percentage of modern ''strong women'' are little more than men with boobs.

When you break down the story of Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor (at least in their second and arguably most beloved films) are perfect examples of the strong FEMININE not the strong masculine because the core of what they do is centred around being a mother. Ripley loses her child and then adopts Newt. Sarah Connor sacrifices everything to protect John. And both of them would literally fight an army if it meant saving their lives.

I am not by any means saying that ''chaining women to motherhood'' is the only way to make a quality ''strong woman'' or that such a stereotype is even desirable, BUT, the point is, this is very much the female equivalent of the ''brave prince saving the damsel'' fantasy that men have. I do, I'm not going to lie.

Millions of women fantasise about being an Ellen Ripley sacrificing themselves for their children just as millions of men fantasise about rescuing a woman from a burning building and rewarded with a kiss.

We also have to get into subjects like ''Fifty Shades of Grey'' or ''Twilight'' which have massively popular female fanbases and yet have female leads that are subservient at best. What does that tell us? Well in my opinion, A) that a lot of women have a ''rescued by a brave prince'' fantasy and B) that millions of women do not see themselves as a Rey or a modern Mulan or an Amazon Galadriel and do not want to be. Those are ultimately male fantasies, not female fantasies. Women are actually quite happy being the lead in romcom. Does that make them any less ''strong'' for wanting to be chased by a man? I would personally say no.

TL;DR, what Hollywood wants us to accept as ''strong women'' isn't actually born out by the media that both men and women find enjoyable.