Character Resurrections: The Right and Wrong Way
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ค. 2024
- Exploring the delicate balance of character resurrection in storytelling, we analyze the dramatic returns of Gandalf in "The Lord of the Rings" and Jon Snow in "Game of Thrones". Discover what makes these narrative choices impactful or problematic, and how they affect the story's stakes and emotional depth.
00:00 Character Resurrections
00:52 The Art of Resurrection
02:54 Why it Matters
04:47 Gandalf's Resurrection
07:02 Jon Snow's Resurrection
09:44 Closing Thoughts
Transform Your Fantasy Writing in Just 5 Minutes a Week: Sign Up for the Tale Tinkerer Newsletter here => thetaletinkerer.com/newsletter/
I must also point out that Gandalf was not a human, but a lesser celestial being himself, which makes his resurrection all the more believable, because he does not abide by the laws of the mortals of Middle-Earth.
I do think that Jon's resurrection arc was poorly handled, the most obvious path I see a resurrected Jon taking is that of a vigilante/pariah, living perhaps north of the Wall in a similar manner to Benjen Stark. It would make sense for him to distance himself from his fellow humans seeing that he was murdered by people from his own brotherhood. Other than that, I can also imagine him becoming a sort of dark horse for the North, staying mostly in hiding and having gained undefined knowledge and/or power. Or perhaps he would become a complete nervous wreck, unable to recover from the trauma of his murder and driven mad by what he saw/experienced on the other side.
Appreciate the input and cannot disagree with your potential avenues of how Jon's path could have looked like with a bit more thought put into it.
I know this is sort of a cliché to say, but it really shocked me when I noticed you had only 91 subscribers. The video has quality on par with channels with hundreds of thousands. Well done!
This is really heart-warming, thank you. Just got started with the channel 2-3 weeks ago and will do my best to keep improving :)
I checkt after i read your post, the subscriber number was at 112 and I thought the next three zeros just weren’t loading. Such a good video damn.
Thank you, this is really appreciated to hear. I'll try my best to live up to that in the many videos to come :)
I feel either one of Jon's sisters dying and being resurrected would have been better. If Sansa died after struggling against the powers of society and then rising to become one of the powers of society then in her resurrection she could face that staying within the bounds of society isn't enough, no matter how powerful her position. She would have to break society or divide herself from it, perhaps by embracing the power that revived her. She would fundamentally change.
If Arya died and was resurrected after going through such a focused journey on her revenge her whole goal could be undercut, forcing reflection and change. If individuals and their goals can be wiped out so easily by forces that have no personal focus on her then why do individuals shaped by the throws of the world matter for a dedicated revenge, especially if there are means, however rare, that might simply undo their deaths. Having her confront her narrow mindedness and face a bigger picture of the world could result in her finding a new path of meaning towards her faceless men training. Another fundamental change.
Jon was just a temporarily derailed train getting back on track.
This is probably the best way to explain that in a few words I've ever heard or read: "Jon was just a temporarily derailed train getting back on track." - Love it ^^
Your idea about Sansa getting resurrected with a change in personality based on her realization that staying within the bounds of society isn't enough, actually sounds quite intruiging. I would have loved to see this one play out :)
Woa, I thought this was a big channel. You were super, super high up on my feed. Great video, good job, automatic follow. Can't wait for more content.
I really appreciate the support, thank you. Just getting started and will do my best to keep improving with every video :)
I heard a theory once based on the books of Jon's death that i think would be an interesting direction to explore. Many times in the book we see Jon wanting to emulate Ned and his sense of honor. However, given the different experiences he's had at the wall and his own leadership that is almost in constant conflict with that of Stannis Baratheon and the Red priestess, he has sometimes done what he believed to be right at the time.
2 examples that come to mind is when he found out Sam lied about the election for Lord Commander to 2 of the candidates. Instead of stating it to be redone and let them know the truth, Jon stays Lord Commander. Another example is the swap of the 2 babies in fear of the sacrifice of Mance Rayders child. These deceitful acts are ones that Ned may not do in the case of honor, but Jon was choosing his own path.
That being said, someone suggested what if his ressurection brought about a Jon who threw his honor away almost entirely? That he has malice towards his own men, he becomes a shell of his former self, figuratively and almost literal die to how they describe ressurection in the series. He stills holds his morals high but perhaps wont blink twice before he kills someone whos obviously at odds with him
That certainly would have been interesting avenues to explore, yes. I would personally have loved to see a Jon trying to emulate Ned much closer. Ned as a character died way too early anyway :)
@@TheTaleTinkerer at the very least it would be transformative. If Jon remained highly motivated and continuing to expand and evolve, thats what keeps audiences invested. Its the Walter White effect of, his motivation keeps him going, but his character and personality changes over time to achieve his goal. And we love him all the way to the end.
I think John snow resurrection could have worked if John changed direction from being the leader and became a loner, maybe he should have left into the wilderness and then return at a crucial moment during some battle. It was like you said, to much business as usual.
Keeping John as a vital pillar for the main storyline could still have worked if executed differently yes. Even if he'd ended up in a similar situation at the very end, if the road to that point would have been different it could have felt more real and plausible.
Your suggestion could even have worked for this nicely and his return could then also have had a much more emotional impact. Imagine an important battle with little to no chance for the loosing side, and then John comes back out of nowhere with a bunch of wildlings from the other side of the wall, turning the tide.
Could have been as a great a moment as Gandalf appearing at Helm's deep.
Well said, commenting mainly for the sake of getting you noticed by the algorithm cause you deserve getting more subscribers. On that note, I just noticed the subscribe button flashed when you said to subscribe. Never new that was a youtube feature!
Anyway, regarding death in stories. I think it's fine as long as it obeys the rules set by the story's worldbuilding and doesn't feel like it's out of nowhere. I didn't really think Jon's resurrection was necessarily bad, but Palpatine coming back to life was bad in both the legends and disney canon since it undermined the story and conflicted with the established worldbuilding of the setting. Yes, later it was expanded that stuff like essence transfer, cloning, etc exist. But I think Sidious staying dead would have been a lot better than bringing him back. Since there just wasn't any setup for him coming back, and it directly hurt Anakin's role in bringing balance to the Force.
In comparison, Sith like Vitiate or maybe even Plagueis or Bane coming back to life would have worked a lot better. They were obsessed with immortality. Bane found Andeddu's holocron on essence transfer. Vitiate consumed an entire planet to gain immortality. Plagueis learned to manipulate Midi-chlorians. Sidious learned from Plagueis but he never cared about the mystical aspects of the Force to the same extent and while he did have Andeddu's holocron, there was no indication of him learning or practicing with it. Maybe if he was using a younger body in Ep 6 when Vader killed him which he transferred into then his resurrection would have made sense but otherwise there was no setup and it was really stupid to bring him back.
Same with Maul when he got cut in two. He should have just stayed dead even if other Sith like Darth Sion could get away with surviving such a clearly fatal injury. Although Maul's survival is certainly a lot less bad than Palpatine surviving and there was some exploration into his crazed hateful state that had kept him from dying.
Another thing I'd prefer from a resurrection, is for there to be some kind of consequence. Like when Obiwan "survived" being killed by Vader he became a Force Ghost. It's sort of a resurrection but he was very clearly changed as a result. Or when Gandalf became white and different after his revival. It just seems like something that should result in a clear and major change in who the character is after surviving or cheating what should have otherwise been their death.
Edit: Ultimately, like anything else in a story, I think death and resurrection should be governed by the rule of cool. If it can make sense, there's some setup for it, and it'd be cool to do so, then it should probably be done. If one of those is false then it probably shouldn't.
Thank you for taking the time to support me with a commetn and doing so in such a detailed manner. This is really appreciated.
Some great Star Wars nuggets / reflections in your comment as well, I'm sure that those coming across it will be grateful for the opportunity to dig deeper :)
I do agree for sure though that death (even if coming back) should have "consequences" or probably more clearly, it should result in a noticable transformation of some kind.
Great video! Keep up the good work!
Thank you, this is really appreciated :)
I don't comment very often, but I just wanted to help give you a boost. Thank you for the video.
This is very much appreciated, thank you. All this early support is really heart-warming. Will do my best to keep improving with every video.
You know, I agree. This is a high quality video and deserves more exposure.
Great video sir!
Thank you for the kind words. Really appreciate it :)
Certainly now after knowing how the story ends Jon Snow could've stayed death and nothing would've changed. The Wall still falls while he's alive and he doesn't even become the king. The only vital part he played in the story after his resurrection is killing Daenerys which felt empty anyway. Any of her others lovers could've done it and that might've even been more impactful.
Yes, considering the very ending of the series, it made even less sense having him come back, I agree. But I try to forget the last season anyway as much as I can. It got worse before already, but that one was just too much for me to bear :)
Hence why the reason why I'm not a big fan of the Dragonballs in Dragonball, the characters are so nonchalant about coming back to life and don't have an existential crisis from the first time they do or the fact that technically death isn't permanent (there are 4 sets of Dagonballs in the manga at least, Earth's, Namke's, the Super Dragonballs (which could possibly give an unlimited amount of resurrections, though that is unconfirmed), and Cereal's (yes, there is an actual planet named Cereal)).
I'm not too familiar with Dragonball myself but based on your description I certainly understand your reasoning for not being overly fond of them.
@@TheTaleTinkerer It just really cheapens the whole thing of life, death, and consequences. There should have been a drawback, and originally there was, a person can only be revived once, but after the transition to a more Sci-Fi genre and making Piccolo part of an alien species, of which at most half could possibly create their own set of Dragonballs, if they were strong enough, just gets rid of any tension, especially if the Namekian gets strong enough they can increase the limit of resurrections their set of Dragonballs can do.
Cool video
Thank you, this is really appreciated. Trying my best to improve with every new video :)
I've been contemplating whether to have the original Vampire in my novel resurrect the fallen living vampires for the final battle. It would effect the main vampire character as she was turned by the original living vampire. I do have the main villain resurrect the main character's mom's a zombie soldier under her control. The former would ruin character development while the latter could strengthen it. Hmm. Thanks
I'm personally always hesitant to resurrect anything (if it was actually dead for the audience) but if the "death" happened outside the audience's view, maybe as part of the worlds history, then obviously there could always be a twist and whoever was presumed dead wasn't actually dead for real, making it a less of a resurrection and more of a "reappearance" :)
@@TheTaleTinkerer I do have that twist with a character and it makes how low the villain sunk all the more apparent
Gandalf wasn’t resurrected. Maiar are immortal spirits unable to pick their incarnation. Eru Ilúvatar granted him more power & sent him because of situation at the time with the ring & Sauron’s betrayal. Men wouldn’t have stood a chance.
John resurrection & importance to the narrative was terribly represented in the show & may not be revealed until the next book is released. But the power to resurrect the dead in service to the gods is known within the series. Dragons were resurrected & through them magic 🪄 returned to the world in great power. Beria Dondarian was resurrected by Thoros of Myr 6 times. Thoros a red priest was considered nothing but a drunk before the dragons returned. Both found themselves in service within the brotherhood to Lady Stone Heart. The Murdered Caitlyn Stark pulled from the river by daughters dire wolf after the red wedding & still bearing the wounds of her death. Then there’s the entire hoards of undead north of the wall.
I really appreciate your in-depth insights here, and I'm sure others will too when checking the comment. I don't disagree with your comments about Jon Snow either. As I mentioned, I was mainly looking at the film/tv adaptions. In general, Jon's resurrection could have been amazing and really elevate the series but it was simply executed extremely poorly - in my humble opinion at least.
For all intents and purposes Gandalf definitely was resurrected.
I'm not sure, I actually think it's the other way round. Gandalf was quite poor for me. His only reason for coming back was - he still has a duty. His character development after his ressurection can be summarized with - he has white hair, a better staff and is stronger.
On the other hand there were consequences with John and the nights watch. And his ressurection had great potential - better reunion with his sisters, him actively turning down the throne although everyone, including his sister voting for him. Or founding a non hierarchicel foundation for better communication between different people, I don't know. But the writers f***ed up. That's the actual tragedy, not the ressurection itself.
I cannot fully agree with your Gandalf reflection here but that is of course the beauty in the world with these things - different opinions can be valid, each for their own side :) I am absolutely with you in regards to Jon Snow though. It is the execution, not the resurrection in general, that was the issue. That's why I'm talking about "missed chances" in the video as well. Written differently, this could have been a cornerstone of modern storytelling execellence. Unfortunately, they did not write it very well and as such, so much potential within this resurrection was lost / left untouched.
@@TheTaleTinkerer I only watched the lotr movies, maybe it's explained better in the books. With that in mind, Gandalf returning was actually just a plot device. The stakes for good main characters to die are also incredibly low. The only one that really comes to mind is Boromir. In GoT main characters die all the time. That's why a ressurection has much more meaning. Lots of other media don't have this advantage. I think Gandalfs resurrection and lots of others aren't even worth mentioning therefore. I'd pick Jack Sparrow's "resurrection" for the 3rd PoC movie. Every member has different and valid reasons to resurrect Sparrow and it also kind of makes sense the way they're exploring the lore.
Gandalf's resurrection is one of ONLY TWO times that ERU, the literal GOD of Middle-Earth directly interferes with the war. That and Gollum tripping and falling into the lava at Mount Doom. Gandalf needed to come back but not as an advisor, as a leader because Saruman had failed in his task and fallen to Sauron. He basically replaces Saruman and takes on his original role.
@@Sovereign-kh4ng Yes, Gandalf is basically rewarded by God for his faithful sacrifice, and the fact that all the other Wizards failed to do 100% their duty, to a greater or lesser degree.
@@TheTaleTinkerer I feel like the game of thrones show really falls off post-resurrection. In my opinion, this pivotal moment will be handled differently in the books. Resurrections have a steep cost in ASOIAF. Beric loses his personality and identity in the process of being brought back six times. Patchface is just a vessel for cryptic prophecies that no one in the books recognizes or takes seriously. Jon Snow will likely be brought back but he will not be the "same". A popular fan theory is the he has warged into his wolf and he will be much more violent, bloodthirsty and beast-like when he is resurrected by Melisandre.
I feel like the critique about missed chances is spot on because the show runners failed to include a cost for his resurrection. A common theme in the books is that the gods are cruel and "only death can pay for life" but this was ignored in the show. I hope the books will not make the same mistake.
Gandalf should've stayed dead. Sorry, not sorry. And Jon Snow warged into Ghost before he was murdered, so technically he's not dead. We aren't going to talk about the show version of events. But yeah, Tolkien messed up bringing Gandalf back. He also should have offed a few more characters in general.
In the video I was looking at the movies/shows rather than the books. There is more depth in the latter to some degree but it can be hard to compare two stories by then also jumping between written and visual mediums. What is your particular problem with Gandalf coming back? Him stealing the show someone else could have gotten instead?
@@TheTaleTinkerer bringing a character back to life ruins the emotional impact of the death. Very rarely do I ever think it's a good idea to resurrect characters unless it's written like the Jon Snow book death. We, as the reader, know he's not actually dead. It shocked us as he was stabbed, but then he mentally jumped into his wolf's body. It left us on the cliffhanger of how he's going to get back into human form. The betrayal was the emotional hit, not the actual "death." It doesn't lose its impact, but leaves us guessing how he'll get out of this situation.
With Gandalf, he was unequivocally dead, which was such a massive gut punch. What an outstanding choice by Tolkien to do that, to kill off the wisest and most experienced member of the fellowship. But by undoing that emotional blow, it ruins the stakes because we know now that a higher power is looking out for them and their mission. It's for the exact same reason the show version of Jon's resurrection lowered the stakes. We know the Lord of Light is watching over them.
So I don't think either scenario worked on film. If anything, Jon's was actually better because at least they wrote it into the lore that Dondarrion was brought back multiple times, so we knew it was possible. Gandalf came out of left field. I'd argue that his resurrection was far more jarring and out of place than Jon's due to the lack of proper foreshadowing.
@@bigredcrazyk Really appreciate the in-depth reply, thank you. There is a lot that I can agree with here.
I do think though, that there is a difference between Gandalf and other resurrections based on the magic system in their respective worlds. Middle-earth is full of ancient, divine-like magic and quite "soft" in terms of its rule-structure.
That makes it a lot more believable - in my opinion - that such a resurrection happens and at least he does come back severely changed.
Now in terms of Jon Snow and book vs show (e.g. the book having the stabbing as the gut-wrenching moment because there is the jump into Ghost that is clear for readers), on that one I'm fully with you. Would that have been more clear in the show, it might at least have alleviated some issues.
@@TheTaleTinkerer I myself tackle resurrection in the fantasy series I'm writing, but it's done in a way that raises the stakes. The main villain, upon her death, is capable of body-hopping into her progeny through blood magic. She can possess anyone with her blood in their veins. This poses a moral dilemma for the protagonists: they must kill off her entire family line to truly stop her, including innocent children. That's one of the very few exceptions I'll allow for resurrection, solely because it creates moral tension and raises the stakes. It also gives a unique spin on the concept of immortality and the lengths one will go to achieve it. Screw horcruxes. Let's just straight up possess kids. (laughs maniacally)
But in the case of Gandalf and Jon, neither work for me because bringing them back doesn't create more tension. If the only motivation to bring a character back is to provide others with hope, that's not a good reason to do it. Not for me, anyway. Nor is unfinished business. Why would you ever want to undo the emotional sting of a character death simply for a feel-good moment later? That just doesn't sit well with me intellectually. It's cheap and dishonest in a way.
But yes, I always enjoy chatting about these kinds of concepts. Probably going to check out a few more of your vids, so you might see some comments from me in the near future. Lulz. Take care. 🫰
@@bigredcrazykAlways happy to chat about these things as well, and make sure to hit me up when that story of yours is available for a read.
Your approach in terms of raising the stakes when it comes to resurrection and the moral dilemma of ending an entire birth line sounds quite intriguing. It can obviously go many ways as well (sad ending with the entire line ending through self-sacrifice, or with more hope in the quest for a way to end this terror without taking that route etc).
I disagree.
John Snow resurrection is more believable le than Lords of the Rings.
May I ask, in what way "more believable"? From an in-world perspective? And are you looking at it purely from the tv-show (which I did here as mentioned) or are you drawing conclusions based on knowledge from the books as well (which changes some things, yes) :)
@@TheTaleTinkerer I'am talking about my perception of the show and movies.
John Snow resurrection is not that original in execution but it works in my opinion.
Gandalf in the other hand has also magic involved, but he just appears out of nowhere because of reasons.
@@gamer-px5cuThank you for getting back to me. From your point of view this sounds as if the "soft magic" in Lord of the Rings and everything more powerful and older than even Gandalf didn't come across for you enough, making his resurrection a bit random.
If understood right, I see where you are coming from. Considering how I saw the two though, especially when taking the "soft magic" system of Lord of the Rings with its ancient, divine and mystical essence, I don't feel that Gandalfs return was just him "appearing out of nowhere". It very much made sense to me based on the world's context.
But as with most things that are consumed, opinions can vary based on different experiences, and that is obviously aboslutely fine :)