Responding to Lord of the Rings “HATE”... (LOTR vs Arcane)

[@AppleBaron]

In my opinion, a good simple story is infinitely better than a bad complex story. So many stories nowadays try to be deep and profound and fail miserably, while simple concepts and stories with heart and soul in them thrive. Things like Arcane are incredibly rare, because it is complex but also has heart in it.

[@HiHi-lt1cb]

So true!

[@Luky.73]

You have a point, something good but simple is better than something complex but bad. But follow this rule is like being too lazy to try something new. Why you would try to make a complex story than could be trash when i can make a simply story that most like? I mean, the risk-benefit its equal, the more you riks, the more you gain, but also the more you could fuck up. Idk if im being clear.

[@fodor6864]

In a way I agree, but as Schnee said, for being good a simple story still needs to be carefully crafted with a lot of details, and nowadays i feel like simple stories are just lazy and therefore they're often really bad. That makes me angry because I feel like they're not even trying, while a bad or average nuanced story will appear more "respectful" of the viewer even if it feels flat in the end, because you can see the writer are really trying to build something. Also I feel like the simple story needs to make you care about the fiction's world even more than a nuanced story to make you feel strong emotions. If the atmosphere does not speak to your personal taste and sensibility, you'll probably have more trouble to connect to the movie in the first place, as the story is not subtle enough to make you care by other ways. And it makes the world building super important, but today world building is often overlooked in my opinion. (For example I think the world building of Star Wars in the original trilogy and in the prelogy is great, but it became so lazy in the last trilogy and the movies suffer from it) With all that said, I enjoy simple stories too, when they are well made and when they can bring strong and complex emotions !

[@fantasywind3923]

As Tolkien wrote: "‘Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry and with only a fragment to read and of course without the earlier-written but unpublished Elvish histories [The Silmarillion]. The Elves are not wholly good or in the right. Not so much because they had flirted with Sauron, as because with or without his assistance they were 'embalmers'. In their way the Men of Gondor were similar: a withering people whose only 'hallows' were their tombs. But in any case this is a tale about a war, and if war is allowed (at least as a topic and a setting) it is not much good complaining that all the people on one side are against those on the other. Not that I have made even this issue quite so simple: there are Saruman, and Denethor, and Boromir; and there are treacheries and strife even among the Orcs. [Besides], in this 'mythology' all the 'angelic' powers concerned with this world were capable of many degrees of error and failing, between the absolute Satanic rebellion and evil of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron, and the fainéance of some of the other higher powers or 'gods'. The 'wizards' were not exempt. Indeed, being incarnate, they were more likely to stray, or err. Gandalf alone fully passes the tests, on a moral plane anyway (he makes mistakes of judgement). Since in the view of this tale and mythology, Power, when it dominates or seeks to dominate other wills and minds (except by the assent of their reason) is evil, these 'wizards' were incarnated in the life-forms of Middle-earth, and so suffered the pains both of mind and body.’ ‘So I feel that the fiddle-faddle in reviews, and correspondence about them, as to whether my 'good people' were kind and merciful and gave quarter (in fact they do), or not, is quite beside the point. Some critics seem determined to represent me as a simple-minded adolescent, inspired with, say, a ‘With-the-flag-to-Pretoria’ spirit, and wilfully distort what is said in my tale. I have not that spirit, and it does not appear in the story. The figure of Denethor alone is enough to show this; but I have not made any of the peoples on the 'right' side, Hobbits, Rohirrim, Men of Dale or of Gondor, any better than men have been or are, or can be. Mine is not an 'imaginary' world, but an imaginary historical moment on 'Middle-earth' - which is our habitation.’" ... "‘In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fell before Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants of the Earth. But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit.’"

[@yuvalgabay1023]

@@Luky.73 well making a simple thing good is very hard ..like very. Whit so few ingredients you need every one to be on it's hights quality and no over Shadow the others. It's really like cooking. Whan you have a dish whit 4 ingredients you can make ok very easily. But make it amazing and it's will take you years to Master

[@thedragonknight3600]

I think Arcane and LotR is two completely different types of stories written for two totally different Reasons. Arcane is written to plumb the depths morality, ask hard questions about right and wrong. About differences in power between people, between groups, between classes. It speaks to the complexity of humanity, the division in society and the struggle to be a good person in the world. LotR is a story written to reflect humanity at it's greatest versus humanity at it's lowest. Aragorn is not the most complex character, but he is honestly the prime example of what a man should be. Kind, Self-sufficient, courageous, perceptive, charismatic, noble. Those are the characters we follow. The ideal of what humans can be. And its obvious by the way we all look at these stories that we need both. We need to explore the griminess of the world, how good people can be stuck in bad places, and bad people can be in good places and everything in between. The deep moral complexity of simply living. But we also need stories that allow us to see what we can be. Who could inspire to be with great effort. This quote encapsulates the idea the best. "Since it is so likely that (children) will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker." And I'll be honest, right now? I think the world needs a fair few tales of knights and courage. Oh and before I get a "well what about Boromir" I'm gonna stop you right there and explain him. He is not an ideal man in the sense of he is perfect. Because he's not. He is tempted powerfully by the ring. However he is tempted because the ring is the ultimate in evil. It isn't saying "use me to do bad and we can rule the world together!" It's whispering in your ear "Isn't this thing in your life hard? Don't you hate feeling weak? Don't you wish you had more control over your life? I can offer that." He yearned to do good, desperately, and the ring preyed on him because of it. However Boromir is the ideal in the sense that while he fell to temptation for a moment, he was able to find his way back to the light and fight with all his might for the good of his companions, even though it cost his life. And while I think Aragorn is something to aspire to, I would also like to be as Boromir. That when I stumble and fall, I am given a chance to once again step into the light and do what I know to be right.

[@justsomerandomdudeontheint99]

I agree with you on Tolkiens use of heroes in LoTR. Boromir is a tragic hero, or one whose faults lead to their downfall but a tragic heroes fault is normally a noble one. Like wanting to defend Gondor or not being able to abandon those in need. Everyone member of the Fellowship has the archetype of a hero but Tolkien turns it around and says the most heroic are the ordinary ones, or the Hobbits. What I don't agree with is the idea that LoTR doesn't examine any moral depth. A large theme in the books is Frodo's dilemma with Gollum, if a creature as horid as him deserves mercy and compassion. I think it'd be more accurate to state that Arcane examines personal flaws more the lord of the rings does. Because although Tolkien's characters are flawed their intentions are generally noble or evil without a bunch of Grey in the middle. The flaws come when they don't know how to act to achieve their goals and the Ring plays on that and tempts them with the power to do good with the inevitability of succumbing to evil. Arcane's characters are flawed because of past decisions and personal trauma but their still seen as heroes because they fight against those mistakes and try to atone. They're all trying to make the past right and the future brighter so they're still heroic but they definitely have character faults. To clarify this ramble, LoTR basically examines morality through the conflict of good and evil forces while Arcane does it on a more personal level with the faults and aspirations of a character.

[@TheLeftCulprit]

Well said

[@thedragonknight3600]

@@justsomerandomdudeontheint99 I never really said that it never did explore moral depth, though I can definitely see how you might come to that conclusion with how I describe their differences. And I think the way you put it is A) more in line with my intention and B) more accurate. So thank you.

[@petercselik5674]

Thanks for this comment.

[@justsomerandomdudeontheint99]

@@thedragonknight3600 I replied without first watching the full video and missed the fact that the video acknowledges the moral complexity of LoTR and subsequently that any comments not arguing this point likely agree with it and didn't mention it due to it being present in the video. Despite that I'm glad that my reply was seen as thought-provoking.

[@dehart3028]

My comment was a genuine request for clarity from schnee because I found such insight in his Arcane series. I could never have anticipated such a deep and well crafted reply. There really is one schnee to rule them all.

[@schnee1]

Thanks!! Really glad you found it helpful!

[@CptCh4os]

I was looking for your comment. Happy you didn't just ignore it or watch it without saying anything

[@mm-gk6xg]

much respect to both of you

[@nonenone6704]

Mad credit to you for being the excuse to make Schnee create this masterpiece! Couldn't have happened without you!.

[@wtaysom]

Congratulations DeHart on receiving the most respectful comment reply in the history of the internet - both addressing specific points and trying to get at the essence. Good god Schnee, this video is a remarkable argument against "never read the comments."

[@Jackie_Tikki_Tavi]

The worst literature teacher I had was the one that answered with a straight up and simple "no" when I was spit-balling a theory instead of with a "hmm, well that's a thought. How would you explore it? How would attempt to justify its merit?" Even if you demerit a supposition or a theory, it doesn't mean you are to demerit its existence. Love this video.

[@Madman13K]

that's kind of depressing.. the most negative response I ever got from a lit teacher is "be very careful if you take that argument, it's easy to look like you've missed the point" (I had, so I didn't). But I feel like being encouraged to make that evaluation personally rather than simply being told what to think is the entire basis for what they're supposed to be teaching.

[@svenlauke1190]

doesn't make the teacher much better, but maybe sometimes you lose your will to debate if someone comes up with an idea you have heard a million times already. imagine someone saw lotr for the first time and told you "well they could have just used the eagles"....aren't we all tired of explaining why that won't work?

[@Jackie_Tikki_Tavi]

@@svenlauke1190 well, teachers train to steel themselves to that, don't they? They are all about the process, rather than only the result. Ironically, that was at college for teachers. She really did suck though. That's what you get when the college doesn't hire their lecturers as full timers/ associates. You get half-ass employees who train future teachers to be just the same or quit.

[@svenlauke1190]

@@Jackie_Tikki_Tavi as I said, ,my argument does not make the teacher much better. but in the end, even teachers are humans. and I had my share of bad to ok teachers.

[@jaredf.6532]

Idk. Depends on the theory. If it was the most retarded theory I've heard. I'm just gonna stop you there and say no before I have to listen to more of it

[@benlewis5312]

One thing to keep in mind: Sauron isn’t a giant eye. The Eye of Sauron is a metaphor for Sauron’s looming presence and gaze over Middle Earth, but Peter Jackson made it a literal giant eye for simplicity. In the books Sauron has a body and is just chilling on top of his tower

[@lemmypop1300]

His solution in the Hobbit is a much better one in terms of the artistic representation itself: the iris of the eye is Sauron's dark shadowy figure. I only regret it was wasted on much inferior films.

[@mikehawkertz9237]

@@lemmypop1300 I know, that scene was the one scene where I wasn’t bored in the Hobbit

[@bengale9977]

I mean, we all know that Sauron isn't just an eye. He is in the first scene of the first movie so we know he had a physical 'human like' form. The people saying he is just an eye are playing dumb in order to score cheap points.

[@OmneAurumNon]

In the books Sauron's body was destroyed during the war of the last alliance. He's a spirit now. Whether that spirit literally looks like an eye, a person, or is invisible isn't really that important imo

[@KanohiVahi]

@@bengale9977 Tbh I felt lot of the questions OP had about LOTR vs Arcane were oversimplifying LOTR a ton. But even then there is nothing wrong with a simple Evil like Sauron. LOTR came from a very different time. A pure evil can be cool if written well. While I appreciate Arcane's moral ambiquity a ton and find that cool as well, not everything has to be like that.

[@keniadorno]

Honestly I thought arcane was gonna be some thing the people who play league could watch and be like “oh yeah they do that in the game!” But the depth that this show goes into is so extraordinary that you could make comparisons to something like the LOTR franchise.

[@st.elachick8969]

no no no, you takeing it all wrong. LOTR is comparit to Arcane, not vice versa

[@KajtekBeary]

@@st.elachick8969 well, without lotr arcane will never exist propably :P

[@scambammer6102]

it's a fg cartoon

[@Dessarius]

The most MASSIVE benefit that Arcane got, was that Riot handed over (basically) whatever the studio asked for and said "just make it good" while they focused on the game. The studio got to take the characters and story outlines that riot had "Something, something, class war in Piltover/Zaun, mad scientists, etc." and do what *they* wanted with it.

[@carmellc00kies68]

@@Dessarius you are so wrong you have no idea. Riot is really strict with the IP it took them 10 years to collaborate with a different company ( they made a comic with marvel). Riot was having an eye on the project from the first min. If you are really interested I highly recommend the 4 part series Riot released called arcane: bridging the rift.

[@samhiltz1107]

You can't subvert a Trope without there being a Trope to subvert. To become a Trope, something has to impact a significant majority of people. (The more people impacted, the stronger the Trope) Arcane COULD not exist without the tropes that were reinforced so powerfully in Lord of the Rings.

[@joganesha4151]

beautifully said!

[@edgarlarios4718]

Well, it wasn't the Lord of the Rings that invented the tropes, but it is among the best humanity has every created in presenting them.

[@evandugas7888]

@@edgarlarios4718 Yes and no he took tropes from old fantasy legands and combined them with real world political elements. A really new spin on it.

[@passwordyeah729]

@@evandugas7888 You could say Arcane is a subversive story of a subversive story.

[@trafalgarlaw8373]

To become a trope, you dont have to "impact a significant majority", a trope is just defined by being common. Has nothing to do with usefulness or quality. Arcane could not exist without... the past? Like, things cannot exist without things to build on, but that's somewhat redundant. Any work of art could not exist without all the other works of art before it that the artist noticed at any point. Doesnt really say anythign about the previous works themselves.

[@juma8126]

I'm very surprised that when talking about Lotr's complexity you barely mentioned Gollum. I see him as the character who copletly flips the seemingly simplistic narrative of Lotr on its head and subsequently caouses many interesting questions. For starters he is clearly a villain, yet he accompanies Sam and Frodo through a big chunk of their journey (he's not even a traitor or a twist villain). He also causes probably teh most interesting moral dilemma of the story - the "Why not kill him?" question. Throught all of the journey he's actively being annoying, disgusting, repulsive and just plain evil, to the point the characters wander about the value of his life. Yet the story not only keeps him alive, he also dies of his own accord, as the end to the evil can only do evil theme. A lesser story would have Gollum be a minor annoyance, who dies either of a useful coincidence or of the hands of the characters with little to no moral repercussions, but Lotr keeps him as a big burning issuse, that does not get resolved until the very end. And all of that is jsut thinking about him thematically, without mentioning his own psyche (the split personality) and his past (him being a corrupted hobbit, who killed his best friend over the ring, which also becomes a really interesting reflection of Sam and Frodo's journey and struggles).

[@1Plebeian]

Also, Frodo basically uses the power of the ring on him. Frodo uses hope for gollum's redemption as a surrogate for hope for himself and he chooses to commit to Gandalfs wisdom "many who live deserve death, many who die deserve life, can you give it to them?". The failure to redeem gollum is one of the things that graduates the story to greater sobriety.

[@r.c.c.10]

I think Gollum succeeded right were Jinx failed. I think Jinx fell down just as a plot device, as a secondary character with no further implication in the story. That the writers failed to convey the question of her redeemability.

[@LizRealGirlBeauty]

I would add the sympathy his back story gives him. He wasn't well liked, but was incredibly intelligent. When he got the ring, he used the invisibility to go around and hear what everyone thought about him, imagining that it would be fun. But instead he heard what everyone actually felt about him and that drove him to withdraw to the cave, because he no longer felt he could be a part of his society. Alone in the cave and with his longer life, the ring was his only influence, driving him violently, evilly insane, until he was no longer the man he was, mentally or physically. He's evil, but also the victim of evil, which makes us pity him. I know I should hate him and that he should have just been killed, but at the same time I can't imagining doing so. It's really deep and sad, and shows how much thought Tolkien put into his characters.

[@danieltorresgonzalez462]

¿Ain't that the reason Sauron was defeated? he thought that no one in teir right mind would deny the power of the ring and use it to fight him, and fail becouse of it. Thats why he was so terrified and his world stopped the moment he realized he was wrong.

[@jacobje00]

I actually like the fact that he didn't talk about Gollum, because it would so easy to just say "Look! Gollum is a grey character with moral complexity, so LotR does have moral complexity, problem solved!" Boromir and Gollum are almost the only morally grey characters, so it is not enough to answer the question through that angle. Instead, the video focuses on the 'simplistic' morality/elements of the LotR story, because that's the part that needs explaining

[@BW-CZ]

I think the value of "Answer" stories can't be underestimated. "Question" stories are amazing and fascinating and fun, but sometimes when you're struggling to figure out something, you need answers. There are stories to make you question and analyse something for years and there are stories that hit you with a "simplistic" concept so hard you break down crying.

[@disconsolate3235]

I'm not sure if you've seen it but Everything Everywhere All At Once is a great movie that asks Questions but also provides an Answer and I think it's such a pure and important display of how impactful both of these types of stories can be

[@tortis6342]

@@disconsolate3235 plus there's googly eyes, and everyone loves an eye that googles.

[@rainershea3880]

It’s like being disappointed in Avatar: The Last Airbender because you want it to be The Godfather.

[@AlyssMa7rin]

Honestly this. I understand that modern audiences seem to trend toward wanting morally gray characters, and deeply nuanced conflicts between the "Good" (Who isn't actually Good) and the "Evil" (Who we should feel sorry for because they were *Forced* to do this evil thing. I loved Arcane, but comparing it to LOTR is just Apples to Bananas.

[@ZyroShadowPony]

@@AlyssMa7rin and honestly having a lot of morally grey characters kinda makes you miss the old good and evil dynamic. Why is the bad guy doing this? For his own growth of power. Why is he attacking these people specifically? Because they are the biggest threat to his plan. Etc

[@carsynagen3525]

THIS!!!! I think this was also why some fans of the original story disliked the shift to Korra. in ATLA, we understand pretty much all of the main cast is good OR evil (in a basic sense). Only Zuko, who deals with severe trauma and change, goes from evil TO good. then, compare that to TLOK, where our protagonist is arrogant and the villains have justifications. Its a huge shift at a fundamental level that is hard to verbalize.

[@LizRealGirlBeauty]

@@ZyroShadowPony I guess that's why we now know it was really Galadriel who let Sauron go evil, he was going to put it behind him until she gave him all that encouragement and sweet elf lovin. Every evil thing he does is to try to get his lady elf love to join him as his queen. 🤦‍♀️my brain hurts.

[@drunkpekka4284]

This. Upvote this comment.

[@AlishaHerbiederbie]

Being able to compare two pieces of cinematic media that are so deeply loved and have become part of the world zeitgeist is incredible. You're able to look at and break down why each is a masterpiece without tarnishing bashing the value of either. Schnee, you are such an insightful person and deserve all the success you have found by tenfold.

[@heartscapesreiki1496]

Totally agree

[@theAaroneer]

Agreed!! Schnee is incredible at this.

[@mhacNH]

Agreed!!!

[@davidhoracek6758]

I've be reading and re-reading the LotR trilogy for years, but I've never been able to put my finger on the core common flaw that all the evil forces in the story. But then you did it at 24:46 - and you're absolutely right: "Every misstep of the evil characters comes down to underestimating what looks powerless." Perfect sentence. It's like, all their well-laid evil plans were about overpowering those whose power might oppose them, and it would have worked, were it not for decisive contributions by people who don't even show up on the power map. If you just care about power, they're literally beneath notice.

[@nonenone6704]

You're more right than you realize. In the mythology predating Lord of the Rings, evil being blinded power is not simply a theme... it's a core metaphysical reality of magic and the whole world. When power is used for evil, the person using it loses some of their power, wisdom, and knowledge, like Sauron.... it was literally impossible for him to imagine someone destroying the Ring, because it was completely irrational to him why someone wouldn't simply use the Ring to overthrow and replace him as the next Dark Lord.

[@Reedamaster]

One way could be to look at that as a flaw, but another way to view is as the video describes. In LotR, Tolkien is answering what he views as the distilled form of evil including power, but also how that power undermines itself by the way it thinks and how it sees the world. Tolkien's evil does not view the hobbits as a threat because they have no power, the entrance to Mount Doom is left open because why anyone want to destroy great power. This theme is reflected in the King of the Valar, Manwe. He is so good that he cannot understand the machinations of evil and fear and lets evil endure once. Tolkien viewed evil as somewhat self undermining, great power even in service of good can be self undermining. You can disagree with Tolkien's ideas and themes as the "ultimate evil" but they are a part of the our symbol of evil as a whole. Is this what ultimate evil should look like or is it something else?

[@sylas9261]

It’s less a flaw due to a lack of depth and it’s more about Tolkiens philosophy that “evil’s” desire to win leads to its own downfall as it inevitably defeats itself. It’s carelessness of the villains and not a flaw in the story. You can see this because it’s a repeated theme throughout the story with the several examples given

[@durttheelder4035]

I recommend a channel called In Deep Geek they do a good job of exploring tolkien's work

[@sylas9261]

@@durttheelder4035 yea. Same with Hello future me. He had two videos on the entire philosophy of LOTR

[@userJohnSmith]

The biggest theme in Lord of the Rings, especially important because Tolkien was Catholic, is that hope is never lost. The entire ghost army plot beat screams this at the audience and the reader. It's so very important and it's why deus ex machina, the eagles, etc are laced throughout the story. It's fundamentally a declaration that even though the world it your neighbors or ridiculously oversized birds seem uncaring they aren't. God has a plan, things will work out, keep the faith.

[@justaghostinthesea]

I'm atheist, but I can honestly get behind that message, not so much the "God" part, but definitely in the "Keeping faith" part

[@xipheonj]

The one thing I disagree with, something that really annoys me, is treating tropes like a negative, like something poison that will ruin a story. Tropes exist for a reason, they became tropes because they are effective storytelling tools. When the best scene that fits the story is a trope, avoiding just for the sake of avoiding it is intentionally choosing to make your story worse. Tropes are a tool like any other, they can be abused and misused, but they are also a core set of tried and true elements that can give you a solid baseline to build the rest of your story on. Even worse than this is when criticizing a story old enough to be the CREATOR of certain tropes, then retroactively blaming them for using them. Tolkien created many of the tropes used in LotR, or at least they weren't elements popular enough at the time to be considered tropes.

[@simplewrites]

YES, THANK YOU! Oh my God, you have no idea how much of this I see today.

[@jokurandomi93]

This shit happens when people listen one half-baked video essay and think themselves as masters of literacy. Or they've taken one class about writing and hello Dunning-Kruger, haven't seen you in a while!

[@jzmc7562]

This is something I hear about with music aswell where people are like "The Beatles are so basic and sound just like everyone else" and it's like ya, they invented all the shit that everyone else does!

[@ajbiffl4695]

Absolutely yes. There's another video on this channel where he actually talks about how tropes aren't necessarily bad, but they need purpose and justification (as in, for character tropes, show the backstory that made them that way). I think it was the "how arcane writes women" video

[@Vincent-gl7bs]

Schnee, this was really cool. You gained a ton of respect in my eyes for being willing to answer that comment's questions so thoroughly and respectfully, distilling it down and addressing everything that there was to talk about (and more than the questioner even thought he was asking, I'm sure) and ultimately turn it into a video of as much if not more depth and caliber than your usual fare. You're a wizard, schnee!

[@losttessa6998]

“Hot, punchy ex-con with amoral goals” the perfect description of Vi lmao

[@lolersthe4th880]

Of all the ways I've heard Vi described, this easily tops them all.

[@jojobookish9529]

People often bring up the "conveniences" in LotR, but these are a feature of the world. Middle-earth is not a world operating on chaos; there is a literal Power orchestrating events. A "chance meeting" in Middle-earth really means "this meeting was fated to happen". In this world, sometimes things DO happen because of Fate (or, more accurately, because it is in the great Song of Illuvatar and even the designs of evil will serve that Song in the end).

[@morganleanderblake678]

Okay but like you can't call something stereotypical and boring when it literally set the mold for an entire genre. Like yes, Gandalf wears a pointed hat. And I hear people say ugh he wears a pointed hat how typical and I'm like HE WAS WHERE IT STARTED GODDAMNIT.

[@nicolaszan1845]

As another comment put it, for a story to be subversive of tropes, there needs to be tropes to subvert. Arcane is a wonderful story for subverting expectations in a skillful manner, but tropes start somewhere based on effectiveness and impact, which is why so many tropes in modern fantasy originate in LOTR: they were used well and hit fucking HARD.

[@dapeach06]

Actually Odin started it. Minus the missing eye and ravens, Gandalf is made to look like the traveler version of Odin/Wotan

[@averyfineloafer]

@@dapeach06 By saying "Gandalf started it" people mean that Tolkien's work was a huge foundation of modern fantasy fiction, spawning all the imitators. Odin is mythological, originating centuries ago, and his traveler archetype wasn't widely imitated until people imitated Gandalf. Tolkien and Gandalf are the literary bridge between old myths and modern fantasy.

[@TorianTammas]

No Odin was where it started, the staff, the personality, known under many names, always having a plan. So just because people do not know where Tolkien copied from does not make him original.

[@TorianTammas]

@@averyfineloafer No he isn't as Fantasy started decades before Tolkien.

[@khazalid4]

schnee bringing up among us in a serious video about deepth of experience made me feel strong emotion i did not know existed.

[@brettbeyer73]

Sometimes we need a nuanced bad guy (Silko) and sometimes we just need a bad guy who's doing it to be bad. My sons constantly tell me "I don't want to identify with the villain! Sometimes I just want him to be evil!"

[@jamestolbert1856]

Sauron used to be good. Evil is not born, it is made.

[@archsteel7]

Schnee my respect for you is immense. As a LOTR diehard, I could not have done what you just did. I could feel my skin crawl just at the way that person worded their questions, and the urge to get defensive was rising up like bile. Like an urge to vomit.

[@HxH2011DRA]

I don't even think that he doesn't have those urges (probably less so then most I'd imagine but still) but being able to pull yourself back & give a respectful full response that goes above & beyond in spite of that shows he was raised right 🤧

[@archsteel7]

@@HxH2011DRA Gonna try and ignore the implicit insult, and agree with you that it’s impressive he could hold himself back.

[@Thumbdumpandthebumpchump]

@@HxH2011DRA Astute as always. Still riding HxH? I'm rewatiching it with the wife myself.

[@HxH2011DRA]

@@Thumbdumpandthebumpchump hell yeah mate! The manga has even returned!

[@Thumbdumpandthebumpchump]

@@HxH2011DRA HELL YEAH IT HAS! Hope Togashi is doing better health wise. Excited to see more of the Succession War and/or its sudden and anticlimactic yet still somehow satisfying end.

[@Anima19925]

Like you pointed out in your other video, I think LOTR does a good job of exploring the complexity and nuance of what a hero can be and what actions can be considered "heroic". Where Arcane has stereotypical types of "heroes" its complex when it shows you "can they still be a hero if they do this morally grey thing" whereas LOTR does the opposite, - "can this non-stereotypical person be a hero if they do this heroic thing" and also "what is considered to be a heroic thing"?

[@tomekkowal4780]

@@sleepykhajiit1875 why does lotr need any of it?

[@stefannydvorak7919]

@@sleepykhajiit1875 Are you seriously calling LOTR empty headed?

[@berilsevvalbekret772]

@@stefannydvorak7919 as much as I love LOTR at its core it is extremely simplistic. Silmarillion though that's a whole other beast.

[@stefannydvorak7919]

@@berilsevvalbekret772 There’s a huge difference between simple and empty headed. Both concepts are not interchangeable. Empty headed means that it’s mindless, stupid, no thoughts put into it. Empty headed is not a good description of Tolkien’s legendarium.

[@ZaZi-Zeta01]

@@sleepykhajiit1875 I think you're vastly over-expecting what people credit him for, but sure if this is how you think than nothing will ever truly please you and you'll die a bitter human being. Why you're here of all places is beyond me, unless it is solely to instigate battle to achieve some minor sense of vindication for being an all-around prick.

[@dinstraction]

Something to point out is that we NEED predictable, tropey stories for the more layered, subversive stories to have something to subvert. We'd appreciate stories like Arcane less if we didn't have expectations set in place from stories like LOTR that we feel shocked, happy or upset when those expectations are flipped. These kinds of stories enhance each other imo - two sides, same coin!

[@simplewrites]

Well said

[@quinn_wbfm]

Now this is a comparison I didn't see coming... always get excited to see new analyses from the channel!

[@danielmaxson4287]

There's a tabletop RPG, "The One Ring", that's widely praised for capturing the essence of LOTR. In it, the characters are defined within certain archetype like the charismatic leader, but they also each have a shadow to their archetype. For example, the charismatic leader may be tempted to use his charisma to manipulate people to his own ends, and the system encourages the GM to place player characters in positions where it becomes difficult to choose between doing the right thing or the expedient thing (the premise being that heroism is making the right choice in these situations). In the Silmarillion, even Sauron himself had good intentions in the sense he wanted to bring order to the "free people" of Middle Earth, but he tried to take a short cut through evil means and that was his path to becoming the Dark Lord. Back in LOTR, both Gandalf and Galadriel, two of the most powerful characters in the story, are deathly afraid of the ring because they realize if they gave into its temptation they'd become exactly what Sauron became: taking evil shortcuts to reach their ends which would ultimately corrupt the very thing they were fighting for.

[@NinjaFlibble]

There are a couple things that bear mentioning. With Legolas and Gimli, the starting point of those characters is that dwarves and elves *absolutely hate* each other. For these two to develop a friendship that, as I heard it, leads to Gimli being the only dwarf to go to the Undying Lands, that's mind blowing (also, the counting game wasn't in the books). And with the female characters, you have to understand the era Tolkien was living in when he wrote his books. The fact that he made Eowyn so heroic was likely very surprising to readers back then.

[@danzansandeev6033]

Wait I swear the counting game was in the books, at least at helms deep. Gimli won by one and Legolas said that I can take it since my friend is alive

[@Theeight8b]

Well, we also should account for... well.. era, about Tolkien was writing. He wrote, what can be described, European and English folklore united and combined. So if we look at folklore - who were the warriors? Who were the fighter on front side? Men. But than again, i would argue, and i'm ready to defend that hill with all my knowledge of the LOTR, that Eowin, Arwen and Galadriel - is not "bad female characters" They are just not the main ones. But if elven princess ready to became mortal to live with Aragorn, than maybe he IS a good man and, maybe, a good king to unite Kingdoms of Man? If Galadriel managed to resist the urge to take the ring - than maybe it's not that bad and Evil can be stoped? And if Eowin can find her ways not in the battle, but in ways of the healer - maybe it is important to look at what you CAN do, and what you ARE doing the best?

[@Thumbdumpandthebumpchump]

It was not that unusual. Powerful female characters are not as unusual or new as people believe. Tolkien was criticized by his contemporaries for how he wrote women.

[@1Plebeian]

I don't appreciate "there aren't enough female characters" in LOTR as a problem. How many important women were there in the dark ages? When swords and armor, catapults and castles, trolls and demigods are the moving pieces, males tend to be more central to the outcomes. Tolkien has a great deal of women in his stories, he just doesn't have female Aragon's, female Gimli's, and female Faramir's. There are the female Valar, many powerful female elves, and femininity is a driving force of many events. It's a poorly conceived, shallow problem that gets generated only by missing all the depth that surrounds and answers it, or by the vapid advocacy of white knighting.

[@1Plebeian]

@@Thumbdumpandthebumpchump they criticized him for not writing about sexuality with his women.

[@l.k.o.6665]

I think the big difference between these stories is the nature of the settings and the relationship of the characters to the setting. In Arcane, the setting has been created by several of the characters we're watching - they have literally built the city and undercity, shaped its politics and laws, etc. The younger generation of characters are almost all being mentored and/or parented by someone who has political or social clout. The problems of the society are central to the narrative, and they are the responsibility of the characters starring in the narrative. The Arcane characters have so much agency in shaping the story. In LOTR, on the other hand, the world is a big wild magical confusing place, full of prophesy and powerful forces beyond the characters' ken. Most of our main characters start off with very little agency. They're the little people of the world - in the hobbits' cases, literally so. Even the most powerful starring character, Gandalf, can only offer advice to leaders and set wheels in motion, he can't go take on Sauron himself. LOTR is a story about how small actions by small people can help turn the tide for good in a dark world, about how a 1,000 piece puzzle needs every single piece to be complete - everyone and everything matters. The good guys win because they consistently make choices out of kindness, empathy and friendship, and all those small choices culminate in a situation where good has the opportunity to triumph.

[@Luke_Danger]

Another thing that I think this touches on is the fact that every story operates somewhat differently - there may only be 20 basic plots as the saying goes, but each story does something different whether it is a change of lenses in which it is viewed through or by taking it in a different direction. And I think some people find something they like, then start to see that as the gold standard for good and can become closed and judgmental when it changes. For example, ATLA and Legend of Korra are both different stories in the same universe, but often people make negative comparisons to Korra by holding up Aang as a golden standard* even though from the start Korra's story was different from Aang's. Aang never wanted to be the Avatar but has to find his way to that, Korra has to learn who *she* is outside of being the Avatar. LoK definitely had some huge missteps along the way**, but that's what happens when you branch out... or you set your expectations to a height that is impossible to achieve which, let's not kid ourselves, ATLA set that because it was an extremely good show. And to Bryke's credit, they did (try to) correct their mistakes as the show went on. Not an easy thing for a writer to do. *Also double standards in there, but that's par-the-course... ** Though I think it's very telling about the discourse around it that those who liked the show with the flaws always feel they have to make that disclaimer Similarly for Arcane and LOTR, they both are amazing stories but they do so in entirely different ways. Inevitably, that also means that someone who likes one may not see the appeal for the other. And that's fine, but we as consumers of stories need to recognize that some stories are just not what we like not because of quality but because of personal preferences. As a small example, I like most of 'Enemy', Arcane's title song, but the fast rap section of it just doesn't ring with me. Is it because that section is bad? No, it takes skill to pull it off at that speed. It's just that that particular style doesn't necessarily resonate with me. Either way, awesome breakdown of that question as a way to explore something deeper. Complexity is good, but that doesn't mean that a simple meal well made is inherently bad because it was simple - after all, they key word for both to succeed is 'well made'.

[@adapienkowska2605]

The problem with LoK is that the authors tried to make a more mature show that they were able to. ATLA's story is pretty simple and ultimately had been done multiple times and the topics are not as relevant today. While LoK tried to tell something about pretty much current ideological struggles that DO matter to a lot of people. To do that you have to have a basic understanding of these ideologies, you have to read a least a little bit about them. Arcane is not really diving into politics as much as LoK tried. It is a more personal story (and still its takes are pretty typical).

[@amethystpaice1451]

For a while I saw LoTR as a story with a very black and white view of good vs evil, because that is essentially what it is trying to portray. All the good in humanity (characterised by kindness, courage, wisdom, hope, empathy, friendship) and all the bad (the opposites to that). But when I looked at some characters more closely I realised it also has a lot of morally grey ideas. Boromir, Denethor and Gollum are obvious ones, but even with a character like Sam, he does above and beyond when it comes to friendship, but in wisdom and understanding he falls behind a bit. It's because of that, Gollum lost all hope of redemption (referring to a specific scene in the book. Frodo has wisdom, empathy, friendship, but he is much faster to give in to despair (only fair, he's been through a lot). What I'm trying to say is, the good in people vs the bad in them is also shown to be complex in the individual characters, and it goes so much further in expressing the theme.

[@EternalAzhrei]

What struck me the most from this video was the observation of the thematic vs the character driven. First off, both Arcane and LotR are terrific in my eyes, so this isn't a critique of either. When I watch LotR, most character actions feel justified because they feel thematically in-line, making what might not seem realistic work because it fits the world, it's well set up. In Arcane, most character actions feel justified because they feel realistic, making what might not be well set-up work because it feels human, it's a reaction I can appreciate. And while the original objections expressed about LotR in this video are well founded inquiries for, as schnee put it, not knowing how to read the work to find the complexities of the work, the same can be said of Arcane. I've spent most of my life reading and loving the more thematic stories, so I found some of Arcane's moments less compelling, not because of the subversion of individual tropes I am used to, but because they didn't seem to have been thematically set up in the first place. Tropes being individual and theme being what those Tropes express together, having moments that felt like they weren't strung into other moments that came before felt unthematic, felt like they weren't as well set up as many other scenes were. My primary example of this would be Vi punching Powder. With how much we had seen and had set up of Vi's love for her sister and defending her against other people's criticism, and having seen or heard no doubts in that purpose from her, it didn't feel very well set up thematically. It felt like, "punchy character can only solve her problem with punches." At the same time, it felt realistic. It felt like, "yep, a distraught character who has just lost her second dad would punch the person who said they did it." And you can even guess well what might be going on in her head. The old, "they were right about you, you really did get them killed," line, for instance, could be in there. But with no foreshadowing of doubts or Vi being asked how far she's willing to go to defend her sister, or asking if she would feel different if something terrible happened, it felt sudden, it felt detatched from the thematic moments that came before, and it felt like what the plot needed to have happen for the story to go where the writers wanted. Thankfully most of the show is well set up and that moment feels realistic enough that it works anyway. The two ways of understanding characters that I find helps these texts are Archetypal and Emotional Understanding. Either can stray towards being melodramatic by putting the archetype or the emotion of a character ahead of their motivations, dlmaking them do something that doesn't seem like the character that has been set up because the plot needs it done, or be ause it fits a trope or emotion. But both are ways in which we can perceive people, perceive society, perceive the world. I feel that being able to use both those lenses is helpful for seeing what these two, and many other, texts/works are exploring and how, and I think Schnee does a great job of expressing how to use them.

[@shar3859]

You just opened my eyes to a new line of thinking! Thanks for taking the time to share.

[@fodor6864]

Your comment is a good addition to the video and gives me a lot to think about, I even saved it 😁 thanks !

[@BratzRockAngels]

I disagree with Violet punching Powder not feeling set up well. Powder messed up many times, and Violet always tried to justify them and help her not seem like she's unhelpful or a "jinx". Violet tells Powder this one time to stay behind for the safety of her and everyone else, this one time she doesn't listen and actually makes a huge detrimental mistake that gets their entire family killed is what's pushes Violet to the edge, if Powder had just listened and stayed behind, they probably would have all gotten out of there.

[@MadManchou]

I really fail to understand what is supposed to be "unrealistic" about the behaviour of any of the LOTR characters. There are legitimately good characters who keep on doing the right thing (Sam). There are somewhat good characters who err on the side of evil for their own reason (Boromir). Even super old and wise wizards are prone to making mistakes in judgement (Gandalf failing to recognise the Ring or Saruman's corruption). There are characters who fall entirely to evil, because of lust or fear (Grima, Denethor, Théoden). There are purely evil entities, who usually aren't human or aren't human anymore (the Witch King, Sauron, Shelob). There are neutral entities who will do right or wrong depending on their interest (Ents, debatably the Haradrim and Easterlings). There are entities who get manipulated (Dunlandings). There are "sinners" who find a way to get redemption (Army of the Dead). No character is flawless, none is an ubermensch who can take on everything (even Sauron, at the end of the day, was first destroyed by a man with a broken sword). Nothing about that screams unrealistic, beside the obvious fantasy things like Elves being immortal or Aragorn living to 250. There are people in this world who basically have only ever done good in their lives. There are people who were cartoonishly evil. There's plenty of people in between, at every level. I don't understand the criticism of the story not being "character driven" either. The overall plot of the book is relatively straight-forward, yes, but that is because there is a clear conflict with a specific task which needs undertaking to end it. Just like, I don't know, real war? However, as soon as you leave the super macro level, each character has their own things going on, they all evolve in some way or another, and plenty of stuff happens because of a character's flaws, or on the inverse, a character facing their demons. The only thing I could hear is that there isn't that much inter-character conflict, but even that evicts the Frodo-Sam, Denethor-Faramir, Aragorn-Boromir & Legolas-Gimli relationships.

[@rustkarl]

For what little Sauron himself appears in the trilogy he makes every appearance matter with his presence. From when Frodo first sees that burning gaze in the Prancing Pony, it feels impossible, it feels huge and domineering. A mere hobbit that we see the world through is so small and powerless and in that moment that impossible evil has its attention bearing down on him. What is normally trusted to ensure his attention never falls on the smallest and most simple of things is now on the receiving end of overwhelming malice. Ants are normally beneath our notice, we may take a look to see them cross our path but imagine if an ant was cognisant enough to realise that a giant was staring down at it, it’s full attention boring into it. That is how that scene FEELS under the weight of the Dark Lord. (It’s also why Sauron and to a lesser extent the Witch-King is one of the few Dark Lord characters in fiction I feel does it right. He doesn’t lift a finger but his presence and attention alone is enough to wither all but the most stout and noble into terrified despair.) The world around him fades and burns away under the glare of the Dark Lord, the material world is irrelevant and insubstantial compared to this ‘thing’. And yet at the same time the subtle and unseen corruption of his evil is at work, an innocent looking band of gold that overrides reason and nobility with the promise of salvation and an almost manic desire for possession. Every other time he is seen it’s at the peak of the dark lands, a lord over all that is foul and blights the world. Even Aragorn bedecked in the livery of kings with Gandalf at his side looks so hopelessly small at the Black Gate with the Eye bearing down on him across the plateau. And that’s to say nothing of the extended lore surrounding him in the legendarium. A master craftsman with a love of order and efficiency succumbs to the promise of power to fulfil that desire. A love of order becomes an affinity for tyranny, efficiency gives way to cruelty and above all, the intent to dominate overrides all with the same twisted purpose and love for order. To me, Sauron is and uses that what I consider most terrible and evil. The will to dominate, the corruption of purpose and the weakness of despair and terror. An iron fist that rules blackened hearts, stunning foes into inaction and treachery with subtle whispers and overwhelming force.

[@fantasywind3923]

The books furthermore create an actual thought process for Sauron to be understood by the readers, then there are also those who interact with him, Pippin through the palantir, etc. Gollum mentioning that "he has only four fingers on his black hand but they are enough" with shudder as if recalling personal torture at his hands etc. The whole Eye thing is basically shorthand for the films, the physical form of Sauron is more or less confirmed in the books and in Tolkien's letters, the eye itself is a concept, an emblem of his, a symbol of Sauron's vigilance, overseeing the armies and slaves of his realm, observing his enemies, it's also concept of his actual power to see things far away, the magic projection of his power and will across vast distances making him truly powerful and real tangible threat indeed. Sauron casts an overpresent shadow, pun intended, and his influence is felt throughout even if his personal presence is not shown, but people actually speak of him coming when the time is right for him, which also shows a bit of the philosophy of his and nature of wielding power, the tyranny and bad way or wielding it vs the power of leaders and commanders that do things personally and what it means philosophically: " He is pitted against a foe too great. For one has come that I feared.' 'Not the Dark Lord?' cried Pippin, forgetting his place in his terror. Denethor laughed bitterly. 'Nay, not yet, Master Peregrin! He will not come save only to triumph over me when all is won. He uses others as his weapons. So do all great lords, if they are wise, Master Halfling. Or why should I sit here in my tower and think, and watch, and wait, spending even my sons? For I can still wield a brand.' He stood up and cast open his long black cloak, and behold! he was clad in mail beneath, and girt with a long sword, great-hilted in a sheath of black and silver. 'Thus have I walked, and thus now for many years have I slept,' he said, 'lest with age the body should grow soft and timid.'" Sauron is also ultimate mastermind, someone who pulled the strings in the shadows, manipulates and divides and plays his enemies in a grand 'chess match' for ultimate power for world domination, THAT must be someone who's greater than life indeed, immense power and dominating will and purpose. The evil of the Dark Lord also portrays deeper themes: "‘In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fell before Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants of the Earth. But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit.’" ... "The theory, if one can dignify the modes of the story with such a term, is that he was a spirit, a minor one but still an 'angelic' spirit. According to the mythology of these things, that means that, though of course a creature, he belonged to the race of intelligent beings that were made before the physical world, and were permitted to assist in their measure in the making of it. Those who became most involved in this work of Art, as it was in the first instance, became so engrossed with it, that when the Creator made it real (that is, gave it the secondary reality, subordinate to his own, which we call primary reality, and so in that hierarchy on the same plane with themselves) they desired to enter into it, from the beginning of its 'realization'. They were allowed to do so, and the great among them became the equivalent of the 'gods' of traditional mythologies; but a condition was that they would remain 'in it' until the Story was finished. They were thus in the world, but not of a kind whose essential nature is to be physically incarnate. They were self-incarnated, if they wished; but their incarnate forms were more analogous to our clothes than to our bodies, except that they were more than are clothes the expression of their desires, moods, wills and functions. Some had attached themselves to such major artists and knew things chiefly indirectly through their knowledge of the minds of these masters. Sauron had been attached to the greatest, Melkor, who ultimately became the inevitable Rebel and self-worshipper of mythologies that begin with a transcendent unique Creator. In the Silmarillion and Tales of the First Age Sauron was a being of Valinor perverted to the service of the Enemy [Melkor] and becoming his chief captain and servant. He repents in fear when the First Enemy is utterly defeated, but in the end does not do as was commanded, return to the judgement of the gods. He lingers in Middle-earth. Very slowly, beginning with fair motives: the reorganising and rehabilitation of the ruin of Middle-earth, 'neglected by the gods', he becomes a reincarnation of Evil, and a thing lusting for Complete Power - and so consumed ever more fiercely with hate (especially of gods and Elves). Sauron was of course not 'evil' in origin. He was a 'spirit' corrupted by the Prime Dark Lord (the Prime sub-creative Rebel) Morgoth. He was given an opportunity of repentance, when Morgoth was overcome, but could not face the humiliation of recantation, and suing for pardon; and so his temporary turn to good and 'benevolence' ended in a greater relapse, until he became the main representative of Evil of later ages." ... "Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic. In his earlier incarnation he was able to veil his power (as Gandalf did) and could appear as a commanding figure of great strength of body and supremely royal demeanour and countenance. But at the beginning of the Second Age he was still beautiful to look at, or could still assume a beautiful visible shape - and was not indeed wholly evil, not unless all 'reformers' who want to hurry up with 'reconstruction' and 'reorganization' are wholly evil, even before pride and the lust to exert their will eat them up. But many Elves listened to Sauron. He was still fair in that early time, and his motives and those of the Elves seemed to go partly together: the healing of the desolate lands. Sauron found their weak point in suggesting that, helping one another, they could make Western Middle-earth as beautiful as Valinor. It was really a veiled attack on the gods, an incitement to try and make a separate independent paradise. Gil-galad repulsed all such overtures, as also did Elrond. But at Eregion great work began - and the Elves came their nearest to falling to 'magic' and machinery. With the aid of Sauron's lore they made Rings of Power ('power' is an ominous and sinister word in all these tales, except as applied to the gods). Sauron dominates all the multiplying hordes of Men that have had no contact with the Elves and so indirectly with the true and Unfallen Valar and gods. Thus, as the Second Age draws on, we have a great Kingdom and evil theocracy (for Sauron is also the god of his slaves) growing up in Middle-earth. He rules a growing empire from the great dark tower of Barad-dûr in Mordor, near to the Mountain of Fire, wielding the One Ring." ... "In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants of the Earth. But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit. Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants, by a triple treachery: 1. Because of his admiration of Strength he had become a follower of Morgoth and fell with him down into the depths of evil, becoming his chief agent in Middle Earth. 2. when Morgoth was defeated by the Valar finally he forsook his allegiance; but out of fear only; he did not present himself to the Valar or sue for pardon, and remained in Middle Earth. 3. When he found how greatly his knowledge was admired by all other rational creatures and how easy it was to influence them, his pride became boundless. By the end of the Second Age he assumed the position of Morgoth's representative. By the end of the Third Age (though actually much weaker than before) he claimed to be Morgoth returned. If he had been victorious he would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and absolute temporal power over the whole world. To attempt by device or 'magic' to recover longevity is thus a supreme folly and wickedness of 'mortals'. Longevity or counterfeit 'immortality' (true immortality is beyond Ea) is the chief bait of Sauron - it leads the small to a Gollum, and the great to a Ringwraith." The figure of Sauron explores the nature of evil in a way and all his actions are portraying it: " Of course another factor then comes in, a moral or pathological one: the tyrants lose sight of objects, become cruel, and like smashing, hurting, and defiling as such." The nature of power and it's corruptive influence, desire to control, etc. In the end in Tolkien the evil is attempt at dominating things or people.

[@vincentcleaver1925]

That look on gandolphs face as frodo volunteers. He did not want this, but he has been watching it come and he can close his eyes but he will always see it

[@ADiceySituation]

LOTR is an epic tale of good vs evil in the most black and white scale. The bad guys are really bad, the good guys are really good. The closest we come to grey is Galadriel's test and Boromir almost killing Frodo for the Ring. It's an anti-war, pro-Earth story where the greatest hero is a gardener who decided his friend wouldn't have to go to Hell alone, told from the mind of someone who experienced battle and death firsthand. Arcane is more character driven, less focused on the big picture. It spends time filling in the complexities of its players rather than the world at large. LOTR is meant to be simple, because it has no reason to be complex. A story set entirely in the Shire or Gondor or Rohan or even Mordor, that could be complex because the stakes might not be taking the whole world into account. Arcane can be complex because it's set at a smaller scale. More than likely, what happens in the city will not affect the rest of the world, so they can focus on the more miniscule things, the seemingly insignificant details. Like Victor's assistant struggling to ask him out but dieing before ever getting a chance. That subplot served no purpose, went nowhere, but it mattered so much because it was frequently shown and they let us get to know the characters. LOTR doesn't, I think, have a bad female character anywhere. Galadriel is timeless and wise beyond measure, but afraid of what she could become with the Ring's power. Arwen's love for Aragorn, a barely mentioned subplot in the books, is what leads to the recruiting of the undead army and the win for Gondor and Rohan in the Pelennor Fields. Eowyn was an out and out warrior who said "The women of this country learned long ago, those without swords can still die upon them". She doesn't pine for Aragorn after he lets her down, she accepts it and moves on. These women arguably represent the Strong Female Character in 3 unique ways. Galadriel is strong of will, Arwen is strong of heart, and Eowyn is strong of spirit, not to mention body. The orcs, made first from tortured, mutilated elves because Morgoth couldn't make real life, now are born from burning pits of mud, like devils spawned from the pits of Hell. And that's about all I got.

[@ADiceySituation]

Point is, they're both good, just in different ways.

[@stefannydvorak7919]

When a whole Gollum exists…

[@georgiancountryball202]

@@sleepykhajiit1875 seems you don’t realize that orcs committed suicide once Sauron was defeated and their baby’s yes baby orcs died of hunger the middle earth United to stop a one being the one causing carnage in the world and trough the story you will see most of the wars men and alles and dwarfs waged was directed defensively and only after being able to breathe did they attack Sauron to distract him from mount doom to give Frodo a window after which orcs did the suicide and their tortured souls and minds forced by the will of Sauron to do bad things managed to find rest like that elves then left middle earth to valinor and age of men and age of peace began until the last ever battle between evil and good after wish the world will be healed of morgoth’s evil and it will be peace forever if something it seems really anti-war tome considering those were defensive wars

[@imaloser5689]

@@sleepykhajiit1875 Lol. What a braindead take.

[@dapeach06]

Gollum/Smeagol is an excellent morally gray character. And there are plenty of other examples in Tolkien's writings. It's not like moral ambiguity is a new thing in storytelling, and people (including Peter Jackson) overstate how black and white LOTR is.

[@MoreImbaThanYou]

When I heard "Gimli and Legolas character arcs are who wins the kill count game", I already cringed. Their character arc is friendship and cameraderie, over the bounds of the races they were born into and that generally dislike each other. Their scene "Side by side with a friend" perfectly summarizes this.

[@samcochran8203]

To be fair, the count game thing is from the books, so it's not exactly like it's out of character

[@kalystagutierrez1607]

@@samcochran8203 it's not out of character but it's not all that it is, basically

[@sawsawsuka]

Yess exactly, gimli and legolas' arcs are about becoming friends and forming bonds in spite of the history between elves and dwarves. Their kill count game is friendly competition, meant to show how far they've both come; how initially, they were hostile towards each other, but since then they have grown. I think the competition is meant to represent how even despite their differences they are able to have mutual respect for one another

[@selvarajagop4739]

I love that you have a calm collected mind when you're analyzing Also for what video you want to makes for arcane's anniversary you could shout out some other content creators whose done videos on arcane. like this one arcane video cinema therapy made.

[@PandemoniumVice]

The depth of Lord of the Rings comes from the books. Once you get past the movie and start delving into the deeper lore, you quickly realize you could very well drown. There's a backstory to every single little thing that happens. Events from hundreds, or even thousands of years ago that have direct bearing on the events we see in the main trilogy. Tolkien was a history professor, and he wrote like one. The movies can't really create the kind of depth of Tolkien's works, because then we'd have 15 to 20 movies that were 5-6 hours long each.

[@gryphonvert]

While I agree that the books contain a great deal *more* depth, I think it sells the movies short not to recognize that they (as a production and as a story) connected on a very deep level with a really huge audience that had not read the books before they saw the movies. There is something the movies DID do very right, in terms of adapting the core elements of Tolkien's story and making it powerful. The deeper lore is great, but much of it is trappings and details. I think that Schnee here -- and in other videos -- does a really great job at stripping away all of the distraction of details to get at the deeper core themes that Tolkien was concerned with, and illustrating that one of the things that makes the movie trilogy great is that it *got those* and it figured out a way to get those across in "only" 9 (or 12) hours. (And I'm saying this as someone who first read the books in the late 70s, read every scrap of Tolkien's writing I could get my hands on, and fell deeply in love with the writing. So I'm not being at all dismissive of the depth of the books and their lore. They were enormously important to me for 20 years before the movies even came out. Therefore, I was not able to watch the movies without all of that deep lore of his written works being on my mind. What really struck me then, though, and what continues to strike me 20 years onward from the films, is that they worked so effectively for the audience that didn't have the experience of the writing first. And I think it does a bit of a disservice to those audience members who came to Tolkien first through the movies -- some of whom may not have read the books after -- to suggest that they could not have experienced the "true" depth of Tolkien's work in that way. Give the movies credit for making the story powerful to people even though the format is more limited in time and scope.)

[@kadalix]

this is honestly such an eye-opening video not only just on how to view nuance and the ideas you've presented here but also on HOW to tackle such questions and where to start thank you for everything you do, schnee!

[@joannelg06]

oh!!! I have a question about Arcane that I haven't seen talked about anywhere but that is very important to me!! But it's more about psychology than storytelling maybe?? It's about the concept of identity/self. Jinx questions us about identities, about what the concept of "self" means". Is she Powder? Is she Jinx? Does she have the free will to decide? Would she be lucid enough to know who she is herself since she grew up in a very unhealthy environment and experienced so much trauma, leaving her no room to explore herself freely (reactive mode)? Can others decide for her? We, as the audience, are divided on this question. On the one hand, we can think that Jinx is the result of trauma, so she is not the real Powder, on the other hand, we can think that Jinx is an empowered version of Powder, so becoming Powder again would be a regression. Also, is there a "real" Jinx (What does it mean to be "one's true self"?) ? Or just the result of circumstances? Why do we both love and hate that Jinx became Jinx? Wasn't she all along supposed to become that twisted version of herself? Why do we think "the real version of someone" SHOULD be the morally good one? Anyway, you see what I mean I am sure.

[@stur3366]

I think you already have the answer to why we love but hate what jinx has become. Like you said Jinx can be viewed as a stronger version of powder which makes the audience happy to see a weak little girl turn into a strong pre adult. But it can also be viewed as a coping mechanism for all the the trauma in her childhood. I like to view jinx as a persona. As a mask for a little girl that has been through to much. That mask has broken many times in the show. When she fights the firelight in episode 4 and starts shooting pow pow everywhere, she does not look like jinx. She looks like a little girl In a women's body. I hope this helps.

[@joannelg06]

@@stur3366 absolutly! But i would like to know how story telling can generate that question. How arcane asks that question and offers several answers. The storytelling process is what i am interested in, not so much the answer.

[@stur3366]

@@joannelg06 My take on how they do it is looking at different perspectives the audience has on morality. It's a difficult process to make the protagonist the antagonist at the same time. He'll im takeing writeig class and I still don't know how they do it lol.

[@Dorlinedainwen]

With lotr, there is so much lore everywhere in so many books/material along with everything being so much more symbolic and allegorical as opposed to more overtly surface level like a lot of the things we see/read now, I think it's more difficult for people to pick up on. A great example is galadriel giving gimli 3 hairs, sooo much behind that if you understand what it was.

[@realistic_delinquent]

Tolkien would resent that, as he hated allegory in all its forms and said there is nothing more perverse than allegory to shield a story from its faults. Symbolism, certainly. Reference, absolutely. But his story should be referential unto itself, as there is enough to pull from the lore that it does not require allegory to be made sensical.

[@natenichols9569]

@@realistic_delinquent j

[@The_Toxic_Avenger]

@@realistic_delinquent I think Lord of the Rings is so often mistaken for allegory because its overarching themes and motifs are so universally applicable that one can make an allegorical connection to just about any aspect of human nature, whether it be political, moral, social, historical, or otherwise. But you are correct, "allegorical" would not be the correct word to describe Lord of the Rings, as allegory is based on the author's intent, not necessarily the reader's interpretation, otherwise the term "allegory" could be applied to just about any story.

[@darthdarovit]

I love how you define problems. It feels like you’ve got a really good system to get to the root cause problem and the underlying intentions. Where did you learn your analysis techniques and can you share anything to help me learn more about it?

[@elijahnoble8011]

I believe schnee has a patreon where he does analysis training.

[@Vijay-tg7hf]

On a side note, I don't know why people often look at Tolkien and say he doesn't write women well. I was a huge movie fan for a long time but got into the LOTR books more recently. I find moments like Lothlorien with Galadriel extremely memorable from the entire trilogy of books and Eowyn's arc was particularly very impressive. Even when I knew Eowyn would be facing the WK from the movies, when it happens in the books you just get shivers. And a lot of her lines in the movies regarding Eowyn's fear of dying from old age and all chance of valor would be gone was from the original writing. Also to note, Tolkien being a veteran, was from a time when women did not go to war and I have seen numerous comparisons made regarding the fellowships journey being akin to leaving home and going to war, not knowing what home will be like when one returns. And so, it was more than impressive that Tolkien was open about women wanting to play their role to defend those they love in the battlefield too etc. All in all of course, its merely an observation, an opinion, and my appreciation for well-written work. I absolutely love the very fair and well described breakdown of what makes each a work of art. Great job.

[@milo_thatch_incarnate]

I left a similar comment just now! It really irked me that that commenter said that Tolkien's women are "barely even characters" just because they don't do or say the same things the male characters do. They're not personality-less because they're gentle, soft-spoken, or don't go off to fight like the men do. Good grief, what a narrow view of what women should be.

[@MurderousEagle]

LOTR is an epic, and like you say the adaptation keeps the scale and theme together because it has to to work. Big example is the speech at pelennor Fields. Everything had to lead together in big sweeping ways, so in the end the 'failed' men with the leader who lost anything stares at the end of the world and still ride to fulfill their ancient oaths. To get this to work other huge moments had to happen, from everything with Theodin, Helm's Deep, the lighting of the signals, mister fire sprinter yelling that there's no hope. And it ends with one of if not the most memorable payoffs in cinematic history. That kind of big moment is not really possible in the close-up tragedy of Arcane.

[@MoonWerewolfAir]

I find this fascinating and I don't have much to add save that I def feel like DeHart missed the mark on media literacy in terms of defining a story's purpose as well as the intent behind its creation. LOTR is set in a fantastical world far from our own that is heavily mythology-based and themed, while Arcane is the opposite. Arcane is a great example of postmodern fantasy story with postmodern mindsets, meant to appeal to character experiences in a bleak and nihilistic setting that is chaotic, complex, and not easily defined, much like our own world. They're not particularly comparable when LOTR is a pretty modern take on fantastical mythology settings and universal themes that make mythological stories span hundreds if not thousands of years, and Arcane is a piece of postmodern art. It's like trying to compare old mythological stories like Arthurian legends with a movie like Blade Runner.

[@Baelger]

Aight, now that you've mentioned it, I absolutely need a full video about that One Piece Punch. The most satisfying punch in the world.

[@edsainmuramasa4751]

LOTR has depth but it is presented simplistically. Gandalf's speeches about whether it is moral to kill Gollum and what the afterlife looks like are both poetic, philosophical, and paint the picture of a man who sees good and purpose in everything. The first speech is what made Frodo keep sparing Gollum and try to find his humanity. The second comforted men about to die while also alluding to the lands to the west as a resting place, the end of a journey.

[@Aarold]

As soon as you mentioned the "Well-deserved-punch" I was looking for the One Piece examples. When you didn't have one in the background as you were starting it I was sad... then you showed what I consider the best example in all of media. That punch of the Celestial Dragon is so very perfect.

[@Alfonso88279]

This is the kind of stuff that say people that don't understand the Lord of the rings world or material. They just don't. They are making a mistake about the type of story they are reading. Arcane is character driven, it's a story that revolves around a few characters. Lord of the rings is about more abstract concepts, what you are watching is light vs darkness in a wide scale. You are watching a world evolving, you are watching time developing, human soul projected over a world. I love both but the scale of LOTR is huuuuuge, while Arcane is a great little story. Those are two very different stories and wisdom dictates to not compare them with each other.

[@nonenone6704]

Ironically, Tolkien did write his own small tragic myth, set thousands of years before Lord of the Rings, about a hero who murdered his best friend, was responsible for all his followers being massacred, and impregnating his own sister. It's called "The Children of Hurin" or "The Tale of Turin Turumbar". Doesn't change the world, and it only a small part of the story.

[@queenberuthiel5469]

@@nonenone6704 Hey hey hey hey hey!!! Stop right there. Please stop. 😂 Did you just say "murdered" his best friend? Impregnated his own sister? Yes. I know that Turin Turambar is a great complex character and I like him for being that but the way you put his story into words are just.... incorrect. Lol. He accidentally killed his best friend and he unknowingly got his sister pregnant, and committed suicide after realizing what he has done. There's a huge difference between what happened in the story and your summary buddy.

[@Alfonso88279]

@@queenberuthiel5469 I don't understand why dramatic characters kill themselves in mythology after fucking their sisters or mothers, I mean, who cares, they didn't know. The part that is truly disgusting is the intimacy that they share as a family, but if that doesn't exist, they are just two persons who got to know each other. Or maybe they were under a spell. That happens often too now that I think of it...

[@queenberuthiel5469]

@@Alfonso88279 Well. I don't know. Lol. I don't even know what particular mythologies you're talking about. 😂 Like Oedipus from Greek mythology and Kullervo from the Kalevala? I would say that that's good and that they're not that sick in the head as some real people lol. But I don't think that's the case with all mythologies tho. In "Alim," an Ifugao epic, the story goes like this: the people angered the god Manungan and the god punished them by basically sending a great flood to drown them (sounds like Noah's arc? Trust me this epic was way before my ancestors crossed paths with Christian missionaries 😂). But two children survived. Wigan and Bugan. AND they knew that they are siblings. Anyway flashforward, Bugan got pregnant and also tried to drown herself in shame but the god stopped her. The god solemnized their marriage instead. ☠️ They had 9 children. ☠️☠️ Yep let's stop here. But really, in my opinion, they all have the right to feel that way. With Turin Turambar tho, it's like the final nail to the coffin. He discovered what his mother and sister have gone through. From what I remembered, he seem to be an unhappy lad ever since he was forced to leave their home. It did helped that this is a separate and complete story. I still remember Mr. Christopher Lee's voice narrating the story (I only listened to the audiobook btw) and the whole experience is depressing. With Turin, I totally understand his decision tho. His life is full of sorrow and misery and if I was in his position, I would do the same. Not sure if I'll also use that black demonic sword tho. I hate its original master.

[@bryanmcclure2220]

@@Alfonso88279 Different cultures the incest taboo was very much more a taboo. In ancient times it's still a taboo for us, But in ancient times it was a TABOO. It's hard to describe if you don't know much about ancient culture and worldview But trust me doing Incest unknowningly will probably have not changed An ancient person Self loathing, sham and guilt. If you watch Game of Thrones think of it like kinslaying. Kinslaying is some thing you can be guilty of doing even unknowingly And the accidental kinslayer is just as guilty as the intentional kinslayer

[@kylebutler7174]

I would also add that a lot of these tropes that we know (evil lord, mentor, etc.) come from LoTR. Not saying Tolkien is the original for these tropes, but people who grew up with these stories have these characters specifically on their minds when they hear dark lord, hero, mentor, etc. Which I think adds another element of pure emotion for these stories.

[@JPG.01]

While the question in itself is fascinating, the way it is worded would not have earned somebody a response like this from me.

[@tastefulmoose]

I have never heard anyone explain something so succinctly but in such high detail and keep me interested for half an hour and able to understand every word perfectly without it being confusing or overly simplistic. Really interesting to hear your take as I never really understood the massive hype around LOTR, like, I really enjoyed it but not as much as other people did Amazing as always

[@Firestorm6651]

You’re exceedingly patient in your response to what is to me a fundamentally bad faith question from someone who hasn’t taken time to critically think and instead is using that very shallow Cinema Sins-level nitpicking to shit on something because their only way to appreciate X is to demean Y

[@LindyLime]

In Arcane the moral tension lies in being unsure about what the right thing to do is. In Lord of the Rings the moral tension lies in the difficulty of doing the right thing even when you know what that is.

[@neofluxmachina]

I love how deeply your thoughts run on narratives and how clearly you communicate complex and nuanced ideas

[@HxH2011DRA]

It's extremely impressive

[@Force6262]

I love that you just put One Piece into a video about LOTR vs Arcane. You're like, "Hey, you want to know what raw powerful emotion both looks and feels like in a narrative? Well, here's the most satisfying punch in fiction." Seriously though, I would love to see you do a video that went over the power of the simplistic emotional storytelling that's in One Piece. Thinking about it, most of One Piece's greatest scenes are based around that kind of simple but powerful storytelling. Like the image of a young Robin isolated on a small boat trying to laugh while crying her eyes out, knowing that everyone she loved has been brutally murdered epitomizes that. And the best part is, that just another smaller laser that contributes to the beam that is shooting the world government flag, which is itself a beam that contributes to the death star beam that is that entire story arc.

[@nikkim9014]

I think that the comment was a great jump-off for a video like this. These days people are obsessed with breaking down one thing to build up another, whether it be beloved movies or men v. women, I think this video insightfully answers the question without doing that, and it's refreshing to see.

[@TheAssassinlord123]

I couldn't agree more.

[@Micha-qv5uf]

In short: Complex storys are often but not automatically good. Basic storys are often but not automatically bad. A basic story can be good if the characters feel convincing and relatable and the music and visuals are good and the plot achieves to trigger feelings despite being basic. A complex story can be bad if the complexity is it's own purpose and doesn't lead to either a question or an answer (cough.. Inception cough..).

[@Black_Sun_Dark_Star]

LotR is about a group of adventurers meshed together to achieve a single objective. Arcane is about 2 characters in events that reflect real-life emotions and events. They deliver rather different narratives. There's no define hero in LotR.

[@HxH2011DRA]

Tolkien really said "I am no longer asking" (jk) It's time like these I really appreciate your editing style with the bold text over scenes, really works especially well this time imo In the end all opinions on Human affairs comes down to "to Plato or not to Plato", which is to say reaching for the most perfect form of what something could be, always striving for perfection or to regard everything as circumstantial, situational, and results oriented.

[@schnee1]

lol "To Plato or not to Plato" well said

[@greyworld6242]

Actually Sauron is not the source of all evil, that role goes more to his master.

[@loosetongue2110]

Morgoth/Melkor is one of my favorite fictional character.

[@overseire]

reading that reply makes me KNOW they didn't read the silmarillion, or perhaps not even lord of the rings at all? it seems as though they took most of these points from a surface level understanding of the movies

[@suriketa2740]

The only thing that I disagree about this video is that I think that hobbits feels like "normal and real people", that's the magic of why we connect and feel so small with them in all the journey. I love your videos, is the first time that I comment because I was trying to think about the theme of the Arcane video and the only question I can think is "How is posible that after one year I steal feel so connected with this storie? I feel all the emotions every time and discover new questions evert time I see it? How I'm this obsess whit this show one year later?" I don't know if that helps or give you any good idea, but I hope so :) Pd: sorry for my bad english, is not my first language

[@schnee1]

Thanks! And very fair point about hobbits, it's an interesting combination of realism and idealism there since it does feel a little too comfy/wholesome

[@suriketa2740]

@@schnee1 True, they're too wholesome for being 100% realistic. But that's why is so easy to love them and want to be them, we have empathy for hobbits from the beginning, we feel comfortable and safe in the Shire. Or maybe I just love hobbits a lot because my father reading The Hobbit to me when I was little it's how I was introduce to the LOTR world, so I have a soft spot for hobbits, I confess.

[@supermonstars]

Your videos always make me feel richer for having seen them, and that's something I never feel on KZbin. Can't praise it enough nor do I have the vocabulary to do so, just pretend I laser focused every positive emotion straight into the subscribe button.

[@NativeNewMexican]

Just today I watched Addie Counts' reaction to The Green Mile (gotta love the tears for that one) and I realized that I appreciated The Green Mile far more than I ever did before. Why? Because of this video. Your insight into the "one dimensional" baddie/goodie conflict vs. the "complex" ones truly helped me enjoy movies like this so much more. Thank you for helping me appreciate great works of art with a certain lense, a lense that I never had before. You do great work.

[@The_Story_Of_Us]

I literally just finished watching Fellowship again in my middle earth series marathon and I was actually ugly sobbing by the end. These films won more oscars than anything that’s ever existed, they have a huge, loving and devoted fanbase, adored by basically everyone who engages with them, so I have no time for the kind of person you showed in the thumbnail. Remember, people. Always engage with art in good faith.

[@GoneGibba]

Yoo he actually talk about this exact line of thinking in the video and I think you might me missing out by not giving the question a chance. It actually leads to a very interesting discussion on the varied ways you can find and make depth in stories. I think Lord of Rings is fantastic too btw and has a lot of depth.

[@BabudroSun]

Whence cometh an ugly sob? I would hazard to say that nostalgia is no small factor. Would you feel the same way on your first time watching Fellowship? I would wager you would not. Anyway appeals to emotion are a logical fallacy. Bye!

[@The_Story_Of_Us]

@@GoneGibba I know the question is interesting, I watched the video. It doesn’t change the fact that the question is clearly asked in bad faith. Being that reductively confident clearly signals any real will to actually engage with the subject. I have time for the question, not the person asking it. There is a difference.

[@The_Story_Of_Us]

@@BabudroSun Okay dude, speaking of acting in bad faith XD how tf did I roast you before you even threw a punch?… rhetorical question btw, have fun being wrong…

[@schnee1]

Sometimes the results of frustrated confusion look identical to the results of derisive hate. This commenter has witnessed everyone around them celebrating this story they dont understand and that's built up to this exclamation of "What do people see in this stupid story?!" Very common with youtube comments as I've learned in the last year lol

[@612DwarfAvenue]

To further clarify the final point, LoTR *is* meant to be a mythological story. Tolkien wrote it to be a modern British epic because such a thing didn't really exist at the time, all the famous epics were from other countries and time periods. It's meant to be thematic rather than realistic, presenting these grand concepts and views as an overall experience. There's still plenty of nuance in how those concepts are presented, but comparing LoTR and Arcane is comparing apples and oranges; neither of them's "better" or "correct", they're just two different stories with two different methodologies.

[@KnugLidi]

What a nice turn up! Taking a question that superficially seems like a rant and turning it around to look for the point of the question to examine the source of the underlying concern. Schnee could have started out with 'Its mythic! It's not meant to be realistic', but that is a simplistic reductionist statement that would merely inflame the original poster. In putting the mythic response at the end, after exploring differences in emotional manipulation of the two stories, it's final response carries more weight. I must admit, my first gut reaction was where you ended, making the mistake that you avoided. And that would not have increased anyone's appreciation of the two stories and how they were told. Well done, sir. Edited for spelling.

[@jongles352]

These videos always manage to take ideas I couldn’t put to words and explains them back to me like I’m a child. I love it

[@auroradlg154]

A much needed message! I love both Arcane and LOTR, but lately I feel like media and young fans favor stories like Arcane and fail to find what's so good about stories like LOTR. Character driven stories with complex, gray characters and character development are awesome but they are not the only way to tell a story, but I have found a lot of people think it is because a lot of modern media tries to take that route (most of them to a lesser success than Arcane, though). Which brings me to address Rings of Power. I feel like RoP tried to be more like Arcane, with gray characters, new nuanced emotions and even strong female characters. But not only does it fail do do it as well as Arcane: in the process, it also doesn't feel like Lord of the Rings. It's in this eerie limbo where we hear and see LOTR characters and settings but we just can't grasp a LOTR feeling. Being more character driven and morally gray isn't something that Tolkien fans wanted. We've got a ton of other IP's that do that amazingly well, we don't need LOTR to become like them. We like LOTR in all its theme-driven glory with its paragons of virtue and evil.

[@abdulmasaiev9024]

I'm pretty sure the proper touchstone for Rings of Power isn't either LotR or Arcane, but Game of Thrones (importantly the TV show, rather than ASoIaF). Everyone wants a piece of it, to be the ones with the New GoT, but not for any reasons of artistic merit but for the money it brought - and it shows. Suit driven productions lead to suit driven decisions, with a form of cargo cult show creation process where there's an attempt at copying and rearranging successful things without understanding what makes them work, in the hopes of making the planes come.

[@ThePahvinkeitin]

I prefer to look at this another way. Let's use paintings as an analogy. Nuance is the subtlety between different shades of color. But that's not the only way to craft a detailed and interesting piece. Stark contrast can also be interesting. You can make some art less interesting by making the tonal differences more subtle, and you can make some art more interesting by adding more contrast. It's a similar concept as detail. When an art piece has a lot of detail with meaning, it can give a transcendental meaning to the art piece itself. But adding some details for the sake of adding detail can be jarring. In stark contrast, something simple can also be really beautiful. Being nuanced and detailed can be beautiful, and we praise the nuance and detail because they enhance the art. But stark contrast and simplifying the art to its core elements can also enhance the art. We can call two different pieces of art beautiful, but for almost opposite reasons. Ironically, seeing nuance as an ultimate good to strive towards in itself is not a very nuanced point of view.

[@TheGeneralGrievous19]

I think one of the fundamental differences between LotR and Arcane is the difference between a 'fairy-story' and a 'tragedy'. I really recomend reading Tolkien's essay "On Fairy-stories" to everyone. To quote Tolkien himself: "But the “consolation” of fairy-tales has another aspect than the imaginative satisfaction of ancient desires. Far more important is the Consolation of the Happy Ending. Almost I would venture to assert that all complete fairy-stories must have it. At least I would say that Tragedy is the true form of Drama, its highest function; but the opposite is true of Fairy-story. Since we do not appear to possess a word that expresses this opposite-I will call it Eucatastrophe. The eucatastrophic tale is the true form of fairy-tale, and its highest function. " To be fair there are a lot of tragedies in Tolkien's legendarium (like Exile of the Noldor, Fall of Gondolin or Childern of Hurin) but LotR on it's own is definetly a fairy-story. The whole universe of in Tolkien is also kind of a large myth and fairy-story, with many eucatastrophies. But there are a lot of tragedies along the way. And this is another fundamental point. Tolkien was writing a myth, a Chritianized one at that. Arcane is not a myth. It is a story more about the characters with some fantastical elemnets, but it does not deal with archaic symbolism, providance of God, fate of the world, ultimate fight between Good and Evil. Which the video talks about to some extent. Also on the note of villans - if someone does not feel any sympathy to characters like Gollum, Feanor or Maeglin are not sympathetic I'm gonna morb. Or even if you know the full story of Sauron.

[@interestedmeow]

How poignant is the observation that some stories ask questions, others provide answers? Wow. That opens up a whole other thought path for me on why we seem to be obsessed with asking questions in our modern story telling, where as older generations of story tellers seemed intent on providing answers to questions they were already grappling with. Fascinating.

[@plaidpvcpipe3792]

3:15 That's a great skill. Because the actual question that the commenter asked is honestly an ignorant question, but you have the tremendous skill to step back from the emotion and realize that there's an underlying misunderstanding that you can analyze and look in to.

[@Anna-sz2ms]

It's not ignorant, Schnee validates it as insightful at 3:07. The person who left that question just struggled to pin point the deeper meaning in lotr because unlike arcane, the way it is presented isn't obvious. Anyone can watch arcane and articulate why it's great. The writers are very blatant in theme and tone and emotion. Lotr is much more subtle, both are well done, just in different ways. And the fact that it was a question and not a statement shows a desire to understand another perspective on the story and they laid the basis for their issue with specific examples heat are also valid criticisms. So, not ignorant, just a different opinion than most lotr fans in the comment section would have.

[@EternalAzhrei]

@@Anna-sz2ms I think you may be misunderstanding Plaid's use of the word ignorance. It doesn't have to include arrogance, the state of being ignorant is just the state of not knowing. Many people take that state (especially in written text like KZbin comments) and apply their own connotation to it, like arrogance, but Plaid is applauding Schnee for not applying any, for taking it as someone who wants to know, not someone who wants to ridicule. Plaid themselves didn't mean to ridicule. So the use of the word ignorance is applicable, and it isn't meant judgementally, just observationally.

[@plaidpvcpipe3792]

@@Anna-sz2ms the original commenter did not understand the world and plot of Lord of the Rings; they were ignorant of it. “Ignorant” isn’t an insult, it’s a descriptor. The commenter explained the “failures” they saw in LOTR, but those “failures” were all founded on ignorance (again, not derogatory.) And so, the question is based in ignorance as well as a different/unpopular opinion. As the other reply (from eternalazhrei) said very well, my intent was to thank Schnee for his skill as finding a good question within what was, on the surface, a pretty poor question. Where I would probably have gotten frustrated and laid out their ignorance, Schnee first tried to find the root misunderstanding.

[@therealworldsociety42]

The easterlings being evil men in the modern LotR period actually adds to the complexity of the themes of reuniting and resolving past failures. The Easterlings aren’t exactly evil, they just follow Sauron, the dark lord we know is evil. But they only follow Sauron because of their past experiences being colonized and brutalized by the Numenorian men, and because Sauron promises the destruction of Gondor, the last surviving remnant of Numenor. Aragorn is presented as the perfect archetype of a king who will be what his ancestors weren’t and unite the realms of men and the dependents of Numenor under justice and moral virtue. So Aragorn not only defeating the Easterlings, but using his command over the army of the dead to do so is another depiction of that theme of reuniting the old alliances and righting the old wrongs

[@justsomerandomdudeontheint99]

A thing about Gimli and Legolas wasn't just that them becoming best buds was a symbol of a unifying land, it was acknowledged that there are obstacles in the way of this and they overcome these obstacles. This subplot is basically a small critique or racism, even when that racist attitude may have some reason as one group of people abandoned the other when they were friends. About the women of Lord of the Rings. Eowyn isn't really 1 dimensional when compared to a lot of the male cast and I found her story arc satisfying. Arwen on the other hand isn't very well developed but a lot of it is implied. Kind of a whole behind every great man is a strong woman thing. Aragorn is being supported by Arwen the entire way through, the necklace in the movies represents this, and she even sacrifices her immortality to be with him. This isn't just some vague female character this is a relationship in which side sacrifices some things for their love. Any relationship requires some sacrifice from each side in order to remain healthy, whether it's time, money, or freedom.

[@Arcexey]

Sauron is not just a big evil - that's the MCU we're talking about. Sauron has a very unique weakness and abundantly described backstory. Sauron is even worked into the title of the movies. There isn't just an undead army at disposal, that required a very specific set of circumstances to be unleashed. Eowyn's arc is about being both a fighter and a maiden. That she kills the biggest baddest scariest henchman is A+ storytelling, which is kind of the opposite of women in Lotr not having character. Arwen is bad ass, not a mary sue generic female. Gimli and Legolas share an arc of opposites allying for common purpose. "Never trust an elf" to "Die side by side with an elf." Literally nothing to do with kill count game. Strength doesn't lie in balrogs and wizards, the entire point of the movie is that strength lies in the most unlikely of all creatures... hobbits. The movie also says that regular men are the ones who are coming to strength. DeHart has never seen lotr :P

[@jamesdosdall8391]

I was afraid this was going to be about the Amazon show 😅 I'm glad that we have this instead of what I was fearing/expecting.

[@mm-gk6xg]

thats what i thought too lmao, i thought the thumbnail was rings of power galadriel until i looked closer and saw that it was eowyn. now that the shows been brought up though id love to hear some of schnees thoughts on it 👁

[@uhlechxzs961]

i just cant believe someone who viewed arcane in its complexity,.. viewed lotr in such simplest of light,..

[@alfredsupersauce]

My first thought when watching Arcane was also to compare it to LOTR. Obviously, I mean who wouldn’t? For context I adored Arcane, but LOTR is my favorite story of all time. Arcane is one of the best pieces of cinematic media to come out in recent years, but there is no comparison. LOTR is in a league of its own.

[@selena7569]

LoTR and Arcane are my two favorite pieces of media ever and I love them for COMPLETELY different reasons. Ngl I gotta mega defensive when I saw the title and regret doing so. Was really happy to sit down with my ego and force myself to hear this one out, because I trust your analysis and ability to approach these things with care. You pretty much nailed everything I've always thought but haven't really vocalized (or even been able to find the words to describe it.) Thank you!

[@Devilbless]

I always find it compelling how people try to compare between stories, in a sense, I couldn't even imagine a comparison between the two stories. Granted, I do see the many "problematic" elements of tolkien's work as i grow older, but it doesn't take away from the ideas and characters that he has created, for me its as if they exist on different planes of existence, similarly to how people regard myths, no one is batting an eye when the great hero kills someone in a myth (not to even go into the amount of dismemberment and other gory allegories in myths), we see it just as it is, a non-human being acting in a characteristic that we can empathize with. Similarly, I wouldn't say that LOTR is not character driven, I think people adore these characters because the entire story is character driven, the plot moves in the direction it moves only because these characters choose to be who they are, and they struggle every moment of it. Sam is probably the most loved character in literature, and it is because he chooses to fight, push and hold on to his undying optimism in the face of the most terrifying of circumstances. I think the reaction of a character to the circumstances that they're in is just as much a character moment as character driven plots. Arcane is by far my favorite show of the past few years, because it is so compelling as a character study in conflict, it just paints a very different picture of it's world, similarly to GoT, it paints a picture of a world similar to ours, where ideals are hard to come by and even harder to live by, simply because of the circumstances that the characters are in. In a sense, I think a good way to compare between the two would be: "What if people in a fantasy world behaved similarly to what humans behave in our world" vs "What if people in a fantasy world behaved in the way that we as humans aspire to be". Both are very interesting to me.

[@schnee1]

Good description of romantic vs non-romantic. And yeah, totally true about characters like Sam (and Gollum and Boromir etc) being very character driven.

[@Devilbless]

@@schnee1 yeah, now that I think of it, romanticism is probably the most apt description. It's also very apparent in the setting as a whole, the downtrodden Zaun juxtaposed with the hyper technologic Piltover, both man made, as opposed to the powerful (and very very extensive) descriptions of nature by Tolkien. I guess the original question could also be "where is the depth in romanticism"?

[@NotANameist]

What part of LOTR is “problematic”? 😂😂😂

[@alecchristiaen4856]

The split between Arcane and Lord of the Rings feels similar to the split between hard and soft magic, and subsequently hard and soft worldbuilding. Hard magic has well-defined rules, abilities and limits, like bending (TLA) or alchemy (FMA). It's great as a tool for the heroes, because the audience has a grip on what they can and can't do, and we enjoy seeing these powers used creatively (the same way we enjoy a detective figuring out the mystery using the same clues as we got). Soft magic is nebulous and strange, and never has clearly defined rules, like the spirit world in TLA. It's a great source of conflict, since we don't need to understand the underlying mechanics to understand the solution, just the problem we're presented. This applies to worldbuilding. The world of Avatar is ridiculously detailed. The deeper you dig the more things make sense, with geography, history, and various cultures melding together in a way that guarantees you the world HAS to look like this. This is immersive, because the world feels real. The world of Bloodborne is none of this. The city of Yharnam has a confusing layout, we're to piece together any semblance of a story from tidbits, and some areas just explicitly don't make sense (from the fishing hamlet in the DLC, you can see the city skyline you visited earlier in the water). And yet there's an immersion in this game too. There's an intense haunting atmosphere, and an overall feeling of confusion and dread as if you're in a nightmare, which is EXACTLY how the designers want you to feel. A hard-built world is fascinating to pick apart like an engine, to see what makes it tick, and it's satisfying to see how everything fits together perfectly. A soft-built world is more interesting to experience on a surface level. They sacrifice logical integrity in exchange for the ability to imprint an emotion. The world of Wall-E can't exist, the massive trash towers should topple, but the striking image of mankind's achievements dwarfed by its own garbage is worth this lack of realism. Lovecraft's alien gods can't exist, they simply make no sense from an evolutionary point of view, but the feeling they convey of a larger universe that doesn't play by our rules and doesn't care about us at all is worth it. I feel like this applies to stories too. Hard characterization, where characters feel truly human, is good for small personal stories, while soft characterization works better in theme driven works.

[@ForgeofAule]

As for female characters, there is definitely a reason there are none in the fellowship. Tolkien fought in WW1, he grew close to and lost many friends in the fighting. The fellowship represents unity but also brotherhood, the bond between men even without a bond of blood.

[@helenlesley9509]

People tend to forget authors had expierinced something that led them to write specific details in their stories. For me I don't look for gender, one of my role models in shows is Uncle Iroh from Avatar the last Airbender. It's nice when both genders are written realistically and have depth. Of course not written the same, but I personally enjoyed the women in LOTR. I love the men for their act of service they provide for one another. How masculine and feminine energies help one another. Strength, guidance, brotherhood, encouragement, honesty, patience and love these characters provide for one another is what draws me back to LOTR ❤

[@leonardomarquesbellini]

Plus people forget that at the end of the day it's a war story, and women don't have much of a place in war.

[@giuliarizzo344]

This is probably my favorite channel on KZbin, people always say I go in things to deep but this, this is exactly how I like to see things.

[@Hendur]

Thing is, I feel like Frodo and Sam DO feel like real people, like very real people indeed, and with them Pipin and Merry. And this is the important part right? That the charakters that are supposed to be the most based persons, get to have the "most real" personalities?

[@matthijsclaessen8152]

I think at it's core The Ring (and Sauron) takes away free will, or freedom if you like. And that is Evil with a capital E.

[@Pete...NoNotThatOne]

I love LOTR because of the scope and the lore already in place, stretching thousands of years to culminate in this one series of events. I always felt like Arcane was the show _setting up_ the incredible tragic events to come, all because one girl accidentally dropped a strange glowey crystal. Also, every time I see Vi, I just want to give the poor woman a hug.

[@AdditionalDavid]

I think I've watched every one of your videos up until this point, and I've always been impressed by the depths of insight into storytelling and character development that you offer, but I think this video is the best you've made. The ground you cover in less than half an hour is beyond what I thought possible when I started the video, and the analysis framework you employ in it (which you've even explained in videos prior) is just so clear and well illustrated in how you approached this video. I think you've fundamentally altered how I think about story analysis. So, thanks 😃

[@kellyramirez7465]

I would say the questions that Arcane rises about power, morality, the worst of humanity and who we are are answered by Lord of the Rings

[@Get-mad-over-9000]

True, it does look complex but it isn't as deep as LOTR.

[@skapunker96]

"LOTR is theme-driven" rather than plot- or character-driven is the crux of this video. I never thought of it like that before, yet it makes perfect sense and why its always resonated so much for me. Ive always been a very idealistic person and have always looked for the Aragorn (or protector of friends/champion of his people) in all the stories Ive experienced or written. Didnt think this random video would unlock a newfound understanding and appreciation for my all-time favorite movie series. Bravo.

[@MihaZ]

I enjoyed Arcane for its characters, but I absolutely love LotR for its "divine" quality. I do get a religious experience when I look at people doing the right thing despite the fear and the obstacles. That moves me, and even after all these years, I still think this story helps me be a better person. Arcane often talked about morality while considering the outcome. In LotR, characters are invited to do what is right, regardless of the outcome, for the consequences are within the realm of Eru Illuvatar alone. What matters is using free will to challenge evil through even the smallest action, for evil within oneself is constant battle.

[@fatalblue]

I always felt their was another way to describe a story beside plot or character driven but could never articulate the concept until now. Theme driven. Just this single point has given me a new way to look at stories. Also, because I've seen a few comments in regards to this, when someone says a story is plot or character or theme driven its not saying a story lacks the other things but simply points to it priority. Some stories may come close to applying all points equally but I do think one out the three will always edge out the others and that's okay. Thank you for resisting the urge to go defensive and taking time to seriously address the question. This was less a defense of LOTR and more insight into literary dissection. Very cool stuff!

[@sheevinopalpatino4782]

There are no issues with Lord of the Rings' story. Modern literature analysis is incredibly obsessive.

[@adamdecoder1]

On the matter of contrivances and the overall lack of subtlety in LoTR, it's worth mentioning that a lot had to be lost to adapt Tolkien's lore and stories into films, including many of the motivations and machinations for the villains in the story - namely Saruman and Sauron. Saruman wasn't just corrupted out of the blue. He was jealous of Gandalf, and the respect/admiration/love people had for him. He is jealous that Gandalf, despite being a lesser maiar, is held in higher esteem than himself. In the process of seeking the ring, he begins to secretly covet it, his soul believing it might bring him the power to fulfill his own desires. By the time LoTR begins, he is well and fully corrupted, so we lose any picture of Saruman that was once good. But we also lose the nuance that he, like so many others, is seeking the ring for himself, and that his alliance with Sauron is one of necessity, convenience, and deception. Sauron himself is an exploration in the loss of humanity, and how power inhibits your ability to understand and empathize with others. By the time of LoTR, Sauron was so consumed with his desire for ultimate power, he failed to understand the motivations of his enemies. He was fundamentally incapable of understanding that the free people of middle earth would reject this object of power, and instead attempt to destroy it. Hence why Mt. Doom was left unguarded. In his eyes it was completely unnecessary. These patterns of power-hungry characters having fundamental weaknesses and blind spots are everywhere in LoTR lore, but are somewhat lost in the film versions.

[@mentalpopcorn2304]

I feel like it's as simple as both can be good. The weaknesses of one thing can be the strengths of another. That's why there isn't a single best story.

[@jacobmcdonald8911]

A+ I'm honestly not sure how you managed to create/curate a channel which started out with analysis of a single netflix show, and then blossomed into media analysis as a whole. You are eloquent and precise with you arguments. You don't fail to point out the weaknesses of previous works. You are empathetic and emotional about some of my own favorite stories. I started watching you because I also loved Arcane, but I'm watching you now because I respect your opinions and your ideas. Please keep posting videos. I will contribute to your Patreon when i have the financial stability. Thank you.

[@LucasGonzalez-rj9bk]

Okay, so I’m making this comment before I have watched the video all the way through, but I’m making this comment now to see how my idea pans out about these two stories: Arcane is a story I love, but it is very much a product of the current time we all live in. It’s themes and ideas are of the postmodern age. The women in Arcane are written in a post-feminism world, hence women who can punch who have more in story agency. It deals with mental illness in a more concrete way. Revolution, power and class struggles, political machinations, these are all important themes that originate in the last century and it’s own turmoil and revolutions. When Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings, it was not to tell a modern story, it was to tell a timeless one. His inspirations were ancient epics not recent real world events. LOTR is mythical and tells a story about trauma and the inner struggle of light and dark in each person’s soul. His women are in line with ancient goddesses and take more archetypal roles their power implied more than stated. He talks about mental illness not in name but in reference, and refuses to accept allegorical analysis of his work. As a student of comparative mythology, LOTR’s symbolism and storytelling is more clear to me. Arcane on the other hand, for me, is harder to analyze. It relies so little on archetype and myth in its foundation and made for a really confusingly interesting story for me. I deeply love both, but comparing them in the way the commenter does is to me, apples and oranges. Both fruit but totally different experiences. Let’s see how my take pans out over this video! Lol

[@Nr4747]

Essentially, what people need to understand is that LotR is traditional high fantasy while Arcane is post-post-post-post-post (I think we're at 5 "post"s at this moment, forgive me if we're already at 6)-modern fantasy. The goal of traditional high fantasy is to build interesting characters and story arcs within the strict framework of a classical good-vs.-evil morality tale. The goal of post(times-x)-modern fantasy is to deconstruct and re-arrange the very fabric of what being a piece of fantasy media even means. Both LotR and Arcane succeed brilliantly in their goals and are different enough that you can hardly compare them like-for-like.

[@Elessar0wind]

Lotr is plot driven. Nothing wrong with a story like that. But trying to to compare that to Arcane, is like comparing apples with oranges.

[@julietamargenet530]

Such a great question and such a wonderfully-crafted answer. I completely agree with the fact that LOTR and Arcane are two different types of stories, but even so they both can be great in their own ways. Not every story should be the same -- that would be repetitive and boring, and we wouldn't get schnee's amazing video essays.

[@tommylenticchia2319]

Congrats for the video, it's incredible, I will recommend it to my friends groups of Lotr & Lol lovers. Personally I'm a lover of Lotr and other Tolkien's books, not the same for Lol, however, I can't say nothing but that Arcane was an entire piece of beautiful art. I'm now reading the Lotr's books with a group of friends expert of Tolkien and we are discussing about allegories in the Tolkien's works and they told to me that Tolkien in his letters explain that he hated allegories and criticized a lot Lewis books for this reason. I don't deny thaht in Lotr there are obviously a lot of archetypes beautifully rendered, but my friends told me that instead of allegories the characters are simple. I try to explain: the characters are not unrealistic, but without a lot of layers of problems tipical of the modern condition. In this way I find incredibly beautiful and human both Lotr and Arcane beacuse one talks about the simplicity of the human heart and the other talks about the complexity of the human conditions. What do you think about it? If the topic is interesting for you I reccomend you Tolkien's Correspondence. I would love to see another your video talking about it. Thanks again for your work

[@ib13]

Can I just say, thank you. Your videos have been so thought provoking and inspiring on a whole other creative level. As you have mentioned you had a wonderful teacher and mentor who was clearly very wise and excellent at his job and I am truly grateful for his wisdom being passed down here. Personally I am a teacher and if I could inspire a student even 1/8th of how you were I would feel complete. So thank you. Thank for taking the time to make these and thank you for continuing your professor’s legacy and bringing us all into his wisdom. Keep up the great work!

[@HxH2011DRA]

I'd reccomend Assassination Classroom, good show about teaching