Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Ladies, what are your thoughts about Tauriel?

CaptainObvious
Rivendell

Dec 6 2014, 6:41am

Post #1 of 78 (1810 views)
Shortcut
Ladies, what are your thoughts about Tauriel? Can't Post

I'm not thrilled with the character. But one of my friends six year old daughter looks up to me, and I know that every time I show her a trailer for an upcoming movie on my labtop, she says to me, "What does the girl do?" So I would like to present a question to you. In your PERSONAL opinion,

1. Do you think the Hobbit needed to add major female characters?
2. Did that affect whether or not you were going to see the movie?
3.Are you happy with the filmmakers decisions?
4. If you are not happy with Tauriel, what would you have preferred?

Thanks!


Dcole4
Rohan

Dec 6 2014, 6:47am

Post #2 of 78 (1175 views)
Shortcut
I like her ... but [In reply to] Can't Post

I really enjoy the character, particularly in DOS. My issue is that they felt it was necessary for her to have a love-story. As if having a strong female character who doesn't fall in love with somebody isn't possible. It's silly and they've played the romance too heavily, especially in BOTFA. I would have enjoyed her character arc to involve being sympathetic to the dwarves, but not necessitated by a weird love for Kili. It's tacked on and bizarre, and it undermines what is otherwise a kick-ass awesome character.


(This post was edited by Dcole4 on Dec 6 2014, 6:47am)


Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Dec 6 2014, 7:02am

Post #3 of 78 (1102 views)
Shortcut
Agree with all of this. [In reply to] Can't Post

They pushed the love story too hard, and it detracts from the opportunity to have an Elf character who isn't a lord, who is interested in the world around her, and who just happens to be female. There are so many other places they could have gone with the character that I would have liked better.

That said, a certain age group of girl would probably love Tauriel to bits, being less critical of some elements than I am and more apt to crush on Aidan Turner themselves. Tongue

Silverlode



Want a LOTR Anniversary footer of your own? Get one here!

"Dark is the water of Kheled-zram, and cold are the springs of Kibil-nla, and fair were the many-pillared halls of Khazad-dm in Elder Days before the fall of mighty kings beneath the stone."



Cirashala
Tol Eressea


Dec 6 2014, 7:33am

Post #4 of 78 (1126 views)
Shortcut
Fully agreed (SPOILERS-BO5A) [In reply to] Can't Post

I liked DOS Tauriel (haven't yet seen BO5A, though I am gobbling up spoilers as quickly as I can).

Like others, she isn't without fault to me though.

1. The love story- very forced, and not realistic- she has three conversations with him, saves his life a couple times, and suddenly she's madly in love with him? A SIX HUNDRED YEAR OLD elf is madly in love with someone she talked to three times in the span of a couple weeks? I'm not buying it. HIM having a crush, or maybe even starting to love her I can, because she saved his life and also because I personally think the dwarf ladies in Ered Luin probably gave him the cold shoulder (he's hot by human standards, ugly as heck by dwarf standards) so he was probably shocked to even get a second glance from a girl!

But on her side, by the end of DOS I only sensed compassion and friendship on her end. From what the spoilers have said so far, she seems to only have one more brief conversation with him then they part ways until he comes to her rescue during the battle and is killed. NO WAY would love develop that fast!

2. Her poor military conduct- either she sucks at her job and completely brown nosed her way to her position, or she was NEVER leadership material for her job. A simple letter of resignation would have been sufficient to avoid:
  1. Absent Without Leave (AWOL) status
  2. Risking the life of her prince, whom I would assume, as Captain of the Guard, she's under oath to protect, by convincing him to break the law as well.
  3. Also risking his life by abandoning him to a group of several orcs, in which he nearly did get killed by Bolg.
  4. Abandoning her people after a declaration of war.
  5. Breaking the law to go after prisoners she's fraternized with already
  6. Disobeying Legolas's demands that she follow him out of Bard's house despite him clearly being her military superior.
  7. Being impulsive, acting on emotion rather than practical judgment, being unusually willing to do all of the above with little thought of the consequences of her actions.

She's definitely NOT Captain material. And, from what it sounds like, Thranduil agrees (she's lucky she wasn't beheaded for treason at this point!) He was right to banish her, which is the ME equivalent of a court martial, and coming from a military family myself, she deserved every last bit of it.

BUT- had she resigned from her post prior to leaving, just a ten second note, ALL of this could have been avoided and she'd have been free to do what she felt was right. She did the right thing, except for that one little part- resigning from her post first. She went into it hot-headed and impulsively, rather than taking responsibility for her position.

So no, she's not Captain material.

3. Her hair- not only did they screw up cinematically and gave Tauriel's red hair brown roots (seriously- do elves dye their hair or what???), but it's down to her knees. Waist I can buy, but knees? She ain't Galadriel, who is several thousand years old and whose hair isn't even that long! She doesn't even tie it back in battle or skirmishes! Even the actress herself said that an orc yanked half the hair off her head once! You'd think they wouldn't have risked the actress so badly over something so odd looking.



Those bits aside, I like Tauriel. I just really, really, really, really wish that the love story hadn't been in there, and that Kili died defending Thorin along with Fili as per the book. I haven't minded nearly all changes from book to film thus far, but that's the ONE thing I was hoping they'd get right. And her presence botched that heroic end up Frown

To sum: Tauriel being present in the films is completely fine. And she could be a great role model- she definitely had the potential to be one! But they forced the love story in there, and while the Starlight scene and such was undoubtedly the most beautiful scene, music, and writing in all six films for me (threw me back to Cuvienen instantly!), the love story as a whole I think felt forced and unnecessary.

A woman shouldn't have to be a love interest to be a hero. I think that's the problem here. She was supposed to be "feminine energy", but she's every feminist's nightmare! She's cliche'd in with a love triangle, and her sole purpose in film three seems to be to love Kili and mourn him when he dies. I may not be a full blown feminist (I am an equal person, not a feminist per se) but I was hoping we'd get a good female in a film who doesn't have to love someone romantically.

That's not a energetic strong heroic female warrior. That's the same cliche that Hollywood has been throwing at us since the start of moviedom! I don't mind romance stories at ALL, but if she was put in there to be a love interest, don't market her as something else.

I would like to see a female hero without her being in love with someone. Is that so much to ask? And up til I hear about the BO5A and her role within it, she was. And I also find it demeaning that EL was forced into a triangle during pickups after saying that was the ONE thing she didn't want when she was offered the job.

I find it a great pity indeed that women are still required to be love interests in order to do anything of worth in a film Unsure



(This post was edited by Cirashala on Dec 6 2014, 7:38am)


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Dec 6 2014, 7:47am

Post #5 of 78 (1054 views)
Shortcut
Not Captain material... [In reply to] Can't Post

That was their first mistake....asking us to believe a 600 year-old Elf could be Captain of the Guard of a race of immortal warriors...
Now, they needn't have mentioned her age at all, ...except that we needed to know she was a young Elf to explain her irrational, impetuous behaviour, thereby causing this contradiction that just makes her character totally unbelievable and reduces her to a token PC gesture - as the film makers have now admitted she is...
Nothing against a female warrior in the movie, but she and Legolas should just have stayed in Mirkwood until the final battle...




"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
Victoria Monfort


Starling
Half-elven


Dec 6 2014, 8:18am

Post #6 of 78 (1003 views)
Shortcut
Well [In reply to] Can't Post

I love her. She is one of my highlights, and certainly not a nightmare.
And if I had to label myself I would describe myself as a feminist.


Arvida
The Shire

Dec 6 2014, 8:30am

Post #7 of 78 (1010 views)
Shortcut
Well... [In reply to] Can't Post

I watched DoS without having read any previews or read any of the fan responses and I loved Tauriel and I liked the love story. It was sweet and I enjoyed it. Would DoS have worked as well without the character of Tauriel? Honestly I don't think so (and yes I know I'm about to be flamed, haha), at least not the way these movies have been crafted. You needed a "newbie" eyes into the world of the elves (since the dwarfs give a flawed vision of it, being stuck in the jail and whatnot). In the books this "newbie"/introductory eyes was Bilbo and the overarching narration because he spent days running around and observing, but in a movie (for length/pacing reasons) I think it works better by having another character that introduces us to the world of the elves--this character is Tauriel (imo) and her scenes with Legoles/Thraundil and Kili does that for us. If it weren't for Tauriel we wouldn't be privy to the whole world of elves PJ is trying to show us as well as we do now. If you're going to add a character like this, yes, I think 100% should be a female.

But! As far as for growing up girls is concerned, I honestly think Galadriel in the films is worth about 30 female heroines you might find in other movies. She's savy, she's smart and she's very, very powerful. She owns her beauty and holds her own in this world of males and doesn't bow down to anyone.


Rolfina
Rivendell


Dec 6 2014, 9:23am

Post #8 of 78 (1004 views)
Shortcut
Spoilers [In reply to] Can't Post

Well said, Cirashala!

Girl doesn't even know which way to place an arrow into a bow correctly (when she threatenes Thranduil, I believe I saw it in the wrong way ).

I saw it for the second time yesterday (24fps this time, so much better), and one little scene stuck out and made this feminist happy. There is one older woman amongst the people of Laketown, you see her a few times, she stands up against Alfred, helps everyone in need. When all the women and children are hidden in the Great Hall, and the fight outside seems hopelessly lost, she picks up a weapon, and riles up the other women to come along and fight next to their men. Doesn't exactly make it pass the Bechdel Test, but I loved her. She was a strong, fine woman, and her role didn't even feel like "token-woman" as it was too small for that.


dubulous
Rohan

Dec 6 2014, 9:33am

Post #9 of 78 (962 views)
Shortcut
My answers [In reply to] Can't Post

1. Do you think the Hobbit needed to add major female characters?
- No, because there weren't any in the book. In my opinion, adding a female character just for the sake of having a female character isn't really the way to go. It would be great if more stories were written with more female characters to begin with, but when a story doesn't have a female character, one shouldn't be forcefully added, especially accompanied by a hammy love story.

2. Did that affect whether or not you were going to see the movie?
- Absolutely not

3.Are you happy with the filmmakers decisions?
- Regarding Tauriel? No. The love story with Kili is the worst part. If she had just been a captain of the guard who does her job well, even if they had expanded her role a bit, it would have been much better.

4. If you are not happy with Tauriel, what would you have preferred?
- I see the point of adding female characters but not at the expence of the story. Galadriel, in my opinion, was a good addition. She's the only one who actually has a reason to be there in terms of the source material and she's a great female character to begin with. I think Bard's daughters in DoS were also a good addition. They're female characters who fit into the story in an organic way that doesn't distract and doesn't shout "hey, look at me, I'm a strong female character, here to fill a quota!" I think they could have added more female characters in it that way, rather than the shoehorned way Tauriel has been added. Like, sure, have a female elf guard in Mirkwood, give her some lines and presence on screen, but leave it at that. Maybe give the Master a wife. Give a bit more time to Galadriel.



(This post was edited by dubulous on Dec 6 2014, 9:46am)


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Dec 6 2014, 9:51am

Post #10 of 78 (971 views)
Shortcut
I have said this before but I think a different question would be.., [In reply to] Can't Post

What statement would it have made to have created three films which span different locations and cultures and did not have a female character?


Bernhardina
Rohan


Dec 6 2014, 10:02am

Post #11 of 78 (950 views)
Shortcut
I'm a lady... [In reply to] Can't Post

1. Yes. I felt instant relief when Galadriel turned up in AUJ. It is just something about feminine energy that makes the movie come alive. I am absolutely certain of that I would have exaclty the same feeling if I watched a movie with just women, and a man entered the screen, I would be like: Oh, finally... It is about reality too, you just cannot have a trilogy of this scale and no female character, it just isn't realistic, and that applies to Tolkiens book as well.
2. Not one bit.
3. I am content.
4. Well, I did like the character. She does feel very Tolkien in a way. What I don't like has nothing do to with the character itself, but how they have chosen to take her in to the story. The love interest between her and Kili feel almost right, I will have to watch the third film to decide. In DoS it felt fine. Their biggest mistake was to get Legolas involved in it. It is just very out of character that he should be this jelaous douchebag.


Overall: Like Tauriel, think she had enough screentime in DoS and I don't want her to drive the story too much. Wink







Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Dec 6 2014, 10:25am

Post #12 of 78 (931 views)
Shortcut
How do elf-jobs work? [In reply to] Can't Post

It sounds slightly like we are also accusing them of being slow learners!

But actually, how would it work? With a race of near-immortals how would anyone get, take or be promoted in particular roles if there is no labour churn? It can't work as it does in the real world, surely?


CathrineB
Rohan


Dec 6 2014, 11:09am

Post #13 of 78 (889 views)
Shortcut
She's okay [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm very 50/50 about her. I don't hate her, I don't love her. There is a lack of female characters in the Hobbit so adding one that might as well have been a part of the elves - why not?
I do however agree with the lovestory being necessary. Can't quite believe they went there... Kili's one of my favorites despite the love story, but I think it would have been better for both characters if there weren't love. Why not a friendship? It's still a big deal between an elf and a dwarf.

1. Do you think the Hobbit needed to add major female characters?
- Well sorta answered that.

2. Did that affect whether or not you were going to see the movie?
- Nope.

3.Are you happy with the filmmakers decisions?
- Not overall. I have enjoyed the movie a whoooole lot more than many, but the desicions they've made with Tauriel weren't the best. Meaning the hated lovestory.

4. If you are not happy with Tauriel, what would you have preferred?
- A friendship between Kili and Tauriel instead.

Basically, I'm alright with her, but what has disappointed me is that it has resulted in what should have been more Kili and Fili. The fact that they did change a certain part disappointed me more than anything in the movies.


Glorfindela
Valinor


Dec 6 2014, 12:18pm

Post #14 of 78 (852 views)
Shortcut
Mine, obviously: [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
1. Do you think the Hobbit needed to add major female characters? NO.
2. Did that affect whether or not you were going to see the film? NO.
3.Are you happy with the filmmakers decisions? NO.
4. If you are not happy with Tauriel, what would you have preferred? EITHER HER (AND LEGOLAS'S) ABSENCE, OR IF SHE HAD TO BE IN IT I'D HAVE PREFERRED IT IF SHE STAYED IN MIRKWOOD.



jkm7
Bree


Dec 6 2014, 12:37pm

Post #15 of 78 (869 views)
Shortcut
Well P.J. recently said Tauriel was added to please 10-year-old girls so [In reply to] Can't Post

I think in that respect she was a success.
To answer you daughter's questions unfortunately the answer is: She is there because she is a girl. No other reason (as P.J. admitted in the same interview) and she is emotional and cries a lot. Cause that's what girls do and apparently should, according to Hollywood. Crazy
You can read it here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/04/no-regrets-peter-jackson-says-goodbye-to-middle-earth.html

1. Do you think the Hobbit needed to add major female characters?
2. Did that affect whether or not you were going to see the movie?
3.Are you happy with the filmmakers decisions?
4. If you are not happy with Tauriel, what would you have preferred?

1. No. It had Galadriel who is awesome.
2. No, but it affects how much I enjoy them. I cannot stand all the Tauriel scenes.
3. No, obviously.
4. Just Legolas and Thranduil as major characters in Mirkwood. Show the Thranduil-Legolas father-son relationship. If you feel the need to add a Tauriel let her be captain of the guard and nothing else. No forced ridiculous lovestory with Hot Dwarf and no meddling with the major plot.


Glorfindela
Valinor


Dec 6 2014, 12:40pm

Post #16 of 78 (828 views)
Shortcut
I was going to add, point 2 [In reply to] Can't Post

That it didn't affect whether or not I was going to see the film, but it certainly affected how many times I saw DoS (twice, and only because I hoped I had been mistaken in my reaction the first time I saw it). I saw AUJ and the LotR films multiple times in the cinema and even saw the first trilogy in the Royal Albert Hall years after the films were released, something I would never do for the Hobbit films, even if they were shown at the RAH.


In Reply To

In Reply To
1. Do you think the Hobbit needed to add major female characters? NO.
2. Did that affect whether or not you were going to see the film? NO.
3.Are you happy with the filmmakers decisions? NO.
4. If you are not happy with Tauriel, what would you have preferred? EITHER HER (AND LEGOLAS'S) ABSENCE, OR IF SHE HAD TO BE IN IT I'D HAVE PREFERRED IT IF SHE STAYED IN MIRKWOOD.




Calmandcloudless
Lorien


Dec 6 2014, 12:46pm

Post #17 of 78 (832 views)
Shortcut
My answers [In reply to] Can't Post

1. I'm very glad that it did. In storytelling as a whole, we still have too much of a tendency to tell our daughters that adventures are for boys; girls are there to stay at home and be sweet and domestic and hope not to get damselled. Was The Hobbit a suitable vehicle to subvert that message? Yes, of course. We knew there were going to be changes and expansions on the material provided in the book, and the inclusion of female characters was one of the more sensible ones.

2. It made me happier about the movies as a whole. I probably would have gone to see them anyway, but I imagine I'd have felt less comfortable with them. I'd certainly have felt less comfortable sharing them with kids. Nobody is questioning young girls' capacity to understand stories that exclude women from them. It's the messages they take away from those stories that can make a difference to their own sense of self-worth and expected roles. From your post, I'm guessing you understand where I'm coming from, OP.

3. I could have done without the love story. She is introduced as an active, skilled character with a certain amount of depth, only to become more and more defined by Kili. I haven't yet seen BOTFA, so I'll have to wait to observe how her character arc is resolved, but I did feel a little frustrated with her progression through DOS.


EomundDaughter
Lorien

Dec 6 2014, 12:47pm

Post #18 of 78 (827 views)
Shortcut
I think the too long hair [In reply to] Can't Post

was an attempt to make a too short actress look more like a very tall elven warrior.......there are no other short elves in the movies..
Tauriel the warrior is great but the love triangle is silly.........don't need the soap-opera although many fans like it....The fact that she was considered to be of inferior birth was interesting....


TricksyHobbitses
The Shire


Dec 6 2014, 1:22pm

Post #19 of 78 (828 views)
Shortcut
So much to say...this one's spoiler-free [In reply to] Can't Post

I haven't seen BOT5A but I've read the spoilers. I'll leave the spoilers out of this post and make a second one with a warning.

1. I think they could have pulled off the story without adding a female character, but I'm glad they added her (her story, on the other hand...but I'll get to that later).

One thing though is I think they should have added more minor female characters as well. Note that during the entire Mirkwood sequence, none of the female elves speak except Tauriel, even though there are a number of one-line characters who appear. I know the keeper of the keys and the butler are both male in the book, but there are a few exchanges in Elvish when the dwarves are first caught, and during the beginning of the river chase, and they're all between male characters. Would it have been that hard to give some of those lines to women? In a way that makes the story appear even more sexist, because when a woman finally does appear, she's the extra-special designated love interest of two main (male) characters.

2. I can't answer this one without a major spoiler, so I'll get to this in another post.

3. Yes for the decision to include her, no for the love triangle. I'm sick of seeing the message over and over that women can only be love interests and are always defined first and foremost by their interactions with men. I do have one decision to comment on based on spoilers, but again I'll put that in another post.

4. I'd have preferred if the love story had either not been included or had been less overt. I'd also have been happier if they'd had more female characters! No, I'm not talking about adding another Tauriel. I mean more one-line characters who are women (there are a few in Laketown but Mirkwood is just dudes and Tauriel). E.g. the elf who searches Fili, or the one who calls Legolas over to look at Orcrist, or the one who blows on the horn to signal the other elves to shut the sluice gate, or...you get the idea. Any of these characters could have been played by a woman without making one change to the story. I think if we'd seen women interacting with the main male characters in a neutral, non-romantic way, there'd be less of a sense that being female means you have to be a love interest.

The Balrog has wings, but it isn't capable of flight. It's basically a kiwi, only bigger. And on fire.


Voronw_the_Faithful
Valinor

Dec 6 2014, 1:28pm

Post #20 of 78 (818 views)
Shortcut
I believe ... [In reply to] Can't Post

... that unlike the unnamed character in the book, she is not "Captain of the Guard" but rather "a captain of the Guard." A fairly significant difference, because I could certainly see a 600 year old Elf becoming a captain of the Guard, under its commander(s) (probably Legolas himself), even if not the actually commander of the Guard.
If that makes any sense.
That having been said (and without having seen BotFA), I agree with the comments of Captain Obvious and Silverlode about preferring that the romance not be emphasized. However, I am willing to judge it on its own merits, rather than based on my own expectations.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


Elarie
Grey Havens

Dec 6 2014, 2:07pm

Post #21 of 78 (781 views)
Shortcut
I think she's fine as a character [In reply to] Can't Post

and to answer the questions:

1. Do you think the Hobbit needed to add major female characters?
Not really - I've spent my whole life reading and watching adventure stories that focus on men and it never bothered me because all I care about is the adventure, but I admit that lots of other women and little girls might feel differently.

2. Did that affect whether or not you were going to see the movie?
Nope! Not at all.

3.Are you happy with the filmmakers decisions?
I'm fine with it all, and I particularly like the way Tauriel and Kili connect and begin to see each other as people rather than "enemies" in spite of the animosity of their elders. The fact that people call it a "romance" says a lot more about our hyper-sexualized culture than it does about what was actually on screen (I'm referring to DOS here - I haven't seen BOTFA yet).

4. If you are not happy with Tauriel, what would you have preferred?
I like Tauriel, but I would have preferred more dwarf character time on screen.

__________________

Farewell hope,
and with hope
farewell fear.

John Milton


Elentari03
Rivendell

Dec 6 2014, 2:09pm

Post #22 of 78 (790 views)
Shortcut
Agree with all of this and... [In reply to] Can't Post

I cringed in DOS when they had her heal Kili more or less in exactly the same way that Arwen healed Frodo in FOTR. To me, it diminished Arwen's rare powers and seemed like sloppy/lazy scriptwriting.

She had potential as a character, but the love-triangle ruined it.


mae govannen
Tol Eressea


Dec 6 2014, 2:14pm

Post #23 of 78 (815 views)
Shortcut
The Tauriel I liked so much in DOS shouldn't [In reply to] Can't Post

have ended up the way she seems to in the last movie.
I haven't seen the movie itself yet, only read spoilers, but I was really hoping the rune-stone giving scene would have been her last with Kili.
That Kili finally dies defending her instead of Thorin goes in my eyes too far, and takes away too much from the main story as I feel it should have remained..
And at first she seemed to have been in love with Legolas, and to have been crushed by the discouraging warning she got from Thranduil about that.
So I always thought she likes Kili too, but not as much, not like real love. And Kili too could have realized that, and just give her the stone for his mom should he be killed.
She herself could have ended up being killed by Bolg before Legolas can come and save her; but then he would have destroyed Bolg out of sheer fury...
I mean, whatever, but the ending I understand has been given to that romance is in my eyes not correct,
Otherwise, until then, everything was fine for me and in good enough balance.in the overall situation they were all in.

'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)


Noria
Gondor

Dec 6 2014, 2:30pm

Post #24 of 78 (789 views)
Shortcut
Haven't seen TBOTFA yet [In reply to] Can't Post

1. Do you think the Hobbit needed to add major female characters?
--Im an old geek who grew up reading books in which girls were the trophy or the sidekick. Though I never liked that, Im used to it so I didn't actually need an active female character. None-the-less I was glad to have a couple in Tauriel and Galadriel . However Tauriel wasnt written for me she was created for young girls who have different expectations and wants, as evidenced by Frozen. Maybe we should ask some ten year old girls.

2. Did that affect whether or not you were going to see the movie?
--Not at all.

3.Are you happy with the filmmakers decisions?
--I like Tauriel and think she enhances the movies. I liked her role as an ordinary Silvan Elf and a warrior and found Evangeline Lilly convincing. Her relationships with Thranduil and Legolas and her role in the isolation versus engagement story worked for me. I also liked the connection between Tauriel and Kili but the romance I could do without.

4. If you are not happy with Tauriel, what would you have preferred?
--I wish they had created a platonic bond between Tauriel and Kili, rather than a romantic one. But then Im not much of a shipper.


TricksyHobbitses
The Shire


Dec 6 2014, 3:05pm

Post #25 of 78 (789 views)
Shortcut
A few more answers - BOT5A SPOILERS [In reply to] Can't Post

OK, I haven't seen BOT5A but I've read the spoilers posted here, so this is partially speculative until I see it for myself. I wasn't going to see the film in cinemas if they were going to kill her off (so I can't actually say outside the spoilers if I'm seeing it or not!) But my opinion of Tauriel is heavily influenced by how women in general are portrayed in fiction, so be warned, there's a bit of a feminist rant coming up:

Usually when there's a woman in an action movie, she either falls in love with the hero (see: every action movie ever) or is tragically killed off to motivate the hero (see: every Christopher Nolan movie ever). If the hero is James Bond, she usually does both. Either way she's portrayed as a prize to be won or lost by the male protagonist. David Wong comments on the girl-as-reward phenomenon in this article: http://www.cracked.com/...d-to-hate-women.html


Quote
When the Karate Kid wins the tournament, his prize is a trophy and Elisabeth Shue. Neo saves the world and is awarded Trinity. Marty McFly gets his dream girl, John McClane gets his ex-wife back, Keanu "Speed" Reeves gets Sandra Bullock, Shia LaBeouf gets Megan Fox in Transformers, Iron Man gets Pepper Potts, the hero in Avatar gets the hottest Na'vi, Shrek gets Fiona, Bill Murray gets Sigourney Weaver in Ghostbusters, Frodo gets Sam, WALL-E gets EVE ... and so on.


As for the prize being lost, that's more of a comics thing, which you can read more about here: http://www.comicvine.com/...gerators/4015-43763/ and here http://lby3.com/wir/ with Gail Simone's documentation of the Women in Refrigerators phenomenon. AKA Fridging, this is the kill-the-girl-to-hurt-the-guy storyline. The site TvTropes goes into it further with The lost Lenore http://tvtropes.org/...p/Main/TheLostLenore (where the woman is dead from the beginning, and her death motivates the protagonist) and its sister trope I Let Gwen Stacy Die http://tvtropes.org/...ain/ILetGwenStacyDie (where the hero tragically fixates on his guilt over the death of a woman) . They also have a page on fridging that looks at other media besides comics: http://http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StuffedIntoTheFridge. Basically, a geeky, action-based story with a lot of dudes is a dangerous place if you're a girl. And it sucks.

I'm sick of seeing the death and suffering of women used as a cheap source of drama in the lives of men. Five years ago I'd have shrugged it off if a blockbuster movie killed a cool female character and gone "Welp, that's Hollywood and women, if I want a good non-cliche female character I'll go read a Margaret Atwood book", but that was before the series of attacks on prominent geek women that have happened in the last few years. (And before I moved to New York, too - yes, that street harassment video is what it's really like). When there's more sexism in real life, it's harder to take it in stride when it shows up in fiction.

So now we go on to the BOT5A spoilers! Select the rest of the post to read:

2. Yes, reading the spoilers affected whether I would see BOT5A in the cinema or wait for the DVD. I didn't think I could take seeing yet another cool female character get stuffed into the fridge, and I thought it was pretty likely she would be.

I thought that since Kili dies and Legolas is (presumably) single in LOTR, the only way to wrap up Tauriel's story would be to kill her. Which of course would give some nice motivation for The Hobbit's naive, insular, arrogant-as-hell version of Legolas to change in to the guy who pledges his bow to Frodo at the Council of Elrond. He falls in love with a woman whose tragic death teaches him a valuable lesson in caring about the world beyond his borders. Sucks for her, but gives motivation to him, and he's the one who's in the sequel. Sure it's a cliche, but so is the love triangle, so I figured they'd probably go that route.

Ultimately this was why I read the spoilers for BOT5A, and the fact that they don't kill her off is why I'll see it in the cinema. Sure, it sucks that she got forced into a love triangle, but there are apparently girls who like that plotline, and when there's only one major female character there's no way for her story to please everyone. So if the Twilight crowd got what they wanted I'm ok with that.

Now getting to question 3, which I'm answering based on pure spoiler-based speculation:

Yes, there is one major decision I'm happy with, and it goes back to the girl-as-reward comment at the start of this post. I've heard that Tauriel is something of a damsel in distress toward the end of the movie, and that Legolas comes to her rescue in what can only be described as the most, well, Legolas of action scenes.

Now, we all know the rules for a female character in an action movie: the hero likes her, she rejects him and then he does something heroic - defeats the baddie, wins the tournament, saves her life or all three - and she changes her mind and falls in love with him. Because clearly she's just a prize to be won with sufficient effort on the hero's part. So the fact that Tauriel's rejection of Legolas continues even after he saves her life in a blaze of physics-defying glory is actually pretty progressive. While the preteen girl audience might focus mainly on the tragedy, they're also seeing - whether they know it or not - a woman whose love isn't a reward for good behaviour. She doesn't owe her love to the man who saves her life. Sure, it's because she's grieving for another guy she loves, but hey, baby steps. They're still breaking a pretty major rule of Hollywood here.

Meanwhile the boys in the audience are learning that girls aren't rewards. They're learning that if you save a girls life (or help her with her homework, or are her supportive and loyal nice guy best friend) then you aren't earning her love - that's something that she'll feel, or not feel, for reasons of her own, not because she owes it to you. They're learning that sometimes even Orlando freakin' Bloom doesn't get the girl. And it sucks, and you cope with it, and you move on.

And for that to show up in an action-filled sausagefest fantasy movie is actually pretty damn impressive.


The Balrog has wings, but it isn't capable of flight. It's basically a kiwi, only bigger. And on fire.

(This post was edited by TricksyHobbitses on Dec 6 2014, 3:19pm)


Elarie
Grey Havens

Dec 6 2014, 3:16pm

Post #26 of 78 (1377 views)
Shortcut
Tauriel's military conduct was very "Tolkien" [In reply to] Can't Post

I've thought about this before, and I think it's worthwhile to consider here that applying 20th century western military protocol to Middle-earth elves might not be really appropriate. I've just finished reading Tom Shippey's book "J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century" and one of the many interesting things he addresses (it's a great book) is how Tokien based some of his characters' military decisions on the coast guard in Beowulf, who decided quite independently of his superiors to conduct Beowulf to Heorot, using his own judgement. Shippey points out a couple of the pertinent places in LOTR where Tolkien follows this cultural example in Rohan, first when Eomer lends Aragorn horses in direct violation of the king's orders: "I place myself, and maybe my very life, in the keeping of your good faith", and again when Hama allows Gandalf to keep his staff when he enters Meduseld. Of course this is Rohan, not an elf culture, and Tolkien was deliberately using Beowulf as a model, but in the Silmarillion we have the elf Voronwe using his own judgement and leading Tuor to the hidden city of Gondolin, and in Doriath we have Beleg Strongbow, the Chief of Thingol's Marchwardens, receiving permission from Thingol to drop everything and go search for Turin. The point is that Tolkien's characters in general make their own choices - Frodo chooses to carry the ring; his friends choose to go with him; Faramir chooses to let Frodo and Sam continue their journey, in direct defiance of orders; Eowyn chooses to ride to war in disguise, once again in direct defiance of orders, and even the orcs have moments when they make their own decisions (usually bad ones). In this context, Tauriel's decision to go after the orcs and to heal Kili seems entirely "Tolkien".

I've always been a little bit bothered by the movie portrayals of the elf armies marching in perfectly straight lines and doing modern military drill movements. It feels incredibly anachronistic to me, and seems to be based more on ancient Rome than Middle-earth and when reading the books elf culture doesn't seem to be that rigid and dictatorial. They obey their kings, but they also seem to spend a lot of time wandering in the woods singing and looking at stars and just generally being one with nature. Having a social organization and clan loyalty doesn't necessarily imply rigid control and in a culture of immortals who have all had plenty of time to mature and learn and think their own thoughts, it would be surprising to find people who obey orders like automatons instead of making their own decisions according to the need of the moment.

__________________

Farewell hope,
and with hope
farewell fear.

John Milton


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Dec 6 2014, 3:27pm

Post #27 of 78 (1383 views)
Shortcut
Yup, and I just interviewed a representative of that target audience... [In reply to] Can't Post

(my 12-year-old daughter) ...I asked her what she thought of Tauriel: Answer: I don't know, really....
so then I asked if she would still have liked TH (DoS) if Tauriel hadnb't been in it. Answer: She's all right, but doesn't really add anything...


There you go... Wink




"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
Victoria Monfort


(This post was edited by Eleniel on Dec 6 2014, 3:28pm)


MedwedtoBeorn
Rivendell

Dec 6 2014, 4:10pm

Post #28 of 78 (1338 views)
Shortcut
Niece [In reply to] Can't Post

My nine year old niece was Tauriel for Haloween. After she watched the DoS on Blu Ray back in the spring all she could talk about was being Tauriel for Haloween.


Milieuterrien
Rohan

Dec 6 2014, 5:01pm

Post #29 of 78 (1364 views)
Shortcut
Thranduil is obeyed (spoilers) [In reply to] Can't Post

Here's my opinion about Tauriel (while i'm not a lady)

- First : the story needed a female elf presence.
It had to and it dit, for such a movie couldn't get seen only through Bilbo's eyes : there is a story further and this story is LOTR

- Second : Actress Evangeline Lilly asked not to get a love triangle.
What we get is a love quadrangle. Legolas and Kili yes, but don't forget Thranduil, Elf of strong will.

- Third : For the future of Middle-Earth, Thranduil has to find a motivation able to end his obsidional obsession and lack of care about Middle-Earth
Tauriel gives him this motivation as we'll further see, since we know Thranduil will be active in Middle Earth in the aftermaths of the Battle of Five armies

- Fourth : Legolas has to get his 'arc' through LOTR not to stay just a skilled archer, but also to show a soul.
That's what we get here : As TricksyHobbitses has noticed, Legolas didn't 'get the girl' at the end even if he follows her and saves her many times. Instead of that,
Tauriel shows him that she cares about a dwarf more than about him ; the fact that a dwarf can be an object of affection for an elf puzzles him as he's fond of her, the gives him a step into his further friendship with Gimli

- Five : Tauriel is indeed a good captain.
She left the Realm before she got any order to stay in the realm, and as so, she acts as a visionary scout.
When Legolas meets her, he finally decides to track the dwarves with her in Laketown, better than leave her in a grief. And Legolas is Tauriel's superior. Hadn't he decided to go to Laketown, we'll never know what would have happened.
The, Kili was already dying when Legolas asked Tauriel to follow him.Then she was up to do it and follow Legolas. Then, and only then, she met Bofur and the weed that could save Kili : this was a new information, an important one, because Kili being Thorin's nephew, leaving him die instead of saving him could have bad diplomatic consequences. Knowing she could save this dwarf kili, she couldn't take such risk for her people.
Further on, she and Legolas will scout the Orcs and find out that there is a second army : when Thranduil learns it, he jumps out of the battle to spare more elf blood, which gets Bilbo involved to finally get Thorin out of his madness and out of Erebor. Then Tauriel helping the dwarves alone isn't an disobeyance for she isn't a captain anymore.

Six : Tauriel could have a feeling for Kili's promise, as well as for Kili himself : she says that such a promise is sacred.
But Kili finally somewhat shows his own recklessness, because he sacrifices himself fighting against Bolg (who is stronger than him) in order to save Tauriel instead of saving his own life, which is breaking the promise he gave to his mother. (Had he died trying to save Thorin, the promise would have been broken as well). Doing so, Kili's fate ends the line of Durin.

What we can't know about Tauriel (I haven't seen the film yet, these are only speculations based on spoilers about tauriel and Kili's fate) is which grief is hers.
Her failure to save Kili ? Feeling responsible to have Kili broken the promise he gave to his mother because of his loving an elf ? Having been banned by Thranduil while not guilty ?

The good thing is she survives, and that Thranduil acknowledges that her grievance is not only a true love grievance, but also a loyal one.
Because showing her 'love' for a dwarf, she doesn't give any hope to Legolas...
... Which is exactly what Thranduil asked her to do.

That seems a perfect ending for me.
A puzzle, surely, but a mess, no.

A stunning puzzle, as well as Lilly's performance, as I hope so.


(This post was edited by Milieuterrien on Dec 6 2014, 5:12pm)


sarahb1863
Rivendell


Dec 6 2014, 5:06pm

Post #30 of 78 (1313 views)
Shortcut
My take [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I'm not thrilled with the character. But one of my friends six year old daughter looks up to me, and I know that every time I show her a trailer for an upcoming movie on my labtop, she says to me, "What does the girl do?" So I would like to present a question to you. In your PERSONAL opinion,

1. Do you think the Hobbit needed to add major female characters?
2. Did that affect whether or not you were going to see the movie?
3.Are you happy with the filmmakers decisions?
4. If you are not happy with Tauriel, what would you have preferred?

Thanks!


1. No.
2. No, but it didn't make me more likely to see the movie, either. Mostly I was worried her made-up story would detract from Tolkien's story, and I was right.
3. No.
4. I would have preferred the story Tolkien actually wrote. I'm having a hard time finding any of it in these movies. It's hardly about Bilbo's adventure at all - it's about the elves, and Tauriel, and Sauron. Bleh.


Morthoron
Gondor


Dec 6 2014, 5:15pm

Post #31 of 78 (1309 views)
Shortcut
In my estimation... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
What statement would it have made to have created three films which span different locations and cultures and did not have a female character?


The statement would be that the director chose authorial integrity over demographic marketing. Inventing a character that does nothing for the plot -- and in fact weakens it by adding an inane and implausible romantic subtext -- simply to appease a certain market sector, was done for commercial reasons alone, or a weak effort to further pad a plot already stretched thin by making a rather short book into three ponderous films.

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



jkm7
Bree


Dec 6 2014, 5:50pm

Post #32 of 78 (1290 views)
Shortcut
Very smart girl then :-) and bitter for PJ [In reply to] Can't Post

that not even the proclaimed target audience is entirely convinced.


Oleander Took
Rivendell


Dec 6 2014, 6:39pm

Post #33 of 78 (1299 views)
Shortcut
Honestly? [In reply to] Can't Post

1. Do you think the Hobbit needed to add major female characters?

No, we had Galadriel already, perfect powerful female character. I prefer to have just one good female character in a movie than 10 shoehorned and badly done, or in this case one that is pushed so much to the front that it feels she is even more important than the actual Hobbit.

I've read and watched hundreds of books and movies and never needed to see a female to make me feel comfortable or able to identify with the story and characters. I read and watch for the story and the characters need to serve it, not overpower it. Give me a good character that serves the story and I won't even mind if it's a lizard. She is nothing of this.

This was a story written long ago and reflects the structure and thought of its time, when adapting it it should be respected to show how it was and make people think and realize the differences, not adapted to modern standards because that just makes it 'acceptable' in this moment, no atemporal. Want powerful female characters? create new stories


2. Did that affect whether or not you were going to see the movie?

Not at first, I hoped she'd be a secondary character, then I watched and was incredibly dissapointed and seems it'll continue in the last one. I'll watch to finish the saga, but now that I know what they have done with her will deff affect my experience and enjoyment.


3.Are you happy with the filmmakers decisions?

Not at all. I've seen people mentioning her military behaviour and I have to agree, I was flabbergasted when she was reporting to Thranduil and started to move and act as if he was just a basic soldier. But that is just a minor problem I have with her.

A character come from nowhere is more important than the only elf in the book? and even more important than a fellowship member?...or book and canon things?

But my biggest problem is that Tauriel just cuts into major plot points and moments and affects both Hobbit and LOTR.

LOTR point: first important friendship between an elf and a dwarf in ages. Add her and her story with Kili? there you have Legolas and Gimli's friendship diminished because 'we have already seen that why is it so special?'

LOTR point: Aragorn and Arwen's love story (even expanded), important and interspecies. Add her and her horrid 'love story' with Kili? 'we have already seen a romance and also between species, it's the same again'. Plus typical cliches like 'you save me i fall in love' are outdated already

LOTR point: Arwen+Elrond healing, again not that special because we already saw it before

LOTR point: warrior woman Eowyn, singled out as women make a difference. 'ah another warrior woman'

Hobbit point: we have to make place for her to shine and her love story, let's reduce Beorn, Mirkwood, leave canon iconic scenes out to make space. Fili and Kili were all about them both being together singling out how they did all together and how they love each other, here we have Fili loving Kili but Kili is more busy in other things

Bard's daughters were also invented but their characters are so much better done, they really fit into the story and even have moments where they shine without taking over the story



4. If you are not happy with Tauriel, what would you have preferred?

Make her be like Haldir. A couple of punctual moments that tells about her but doesn't roll over the rest of the story and characters.

Use all the time wasted in her and the unnecessary 'love story' in trying to give Legolas a personality, 5 movies and he is still basically the prince of pulling faces and acrobatics; and to build a relationship between
Thranduil-Legolas and Thorin-Fili-Kili.

The excuse that she is there to be the spark for Legolas change is also ridiculous, makes Legolas this empty brained being that needs to be shown the way when actually all his change came from himself; he could have taken that role and place by having him arguing a couple of times with Gloin and then talk more calmly with Fili or Kili and see that not all dwarves are the same hence making him think more about the world outside Mirkwood.

So many lost chances.



"The closer you to get to light, the greater your shadow becomes"


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Dec 6 2014, 7:29pm

Post #34 of 78 (1244 views)
Shortcut
I did not like how she was written [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm fine with the character itself. The stupid and insipid love story was just banal. It was a waste

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


Arveldis
Rivendell


Dec 6 2014, 8:05pm

Post #35 of 78 (1255 views)
Shortcut
I'm female... (No spoilers) [In reply to] Can't Post

And Tauriel did not work for me at all. Granted, the first time I watched DoS I went into the movie with a bad impression of her. I had taken all of the spoilers I'd read and twisted them into a horrid nightmare that I just knew was going to happen onscreen. Now, upon several more viewings of DoS, I've come to the conclusion (and this is after trying to view her from a non-biased perspective) that she doesn't work for me. Some people like her, and that's great. I wish I could like her, but I don't.


1. Do you think the Hobbit needed to add major female characters?
No. Since the producers felt the burning need to include females to make the "gentler" part of the audience happy, though, I would have been fine with a few minor female characters, a few extras with a line or two each, or even Tauriel -- as long as her appearance was limited. But The Hobbit did not need a "strong" (aka: rebellious, defiant, strong-willed, fiery-tempered warrior Elf-lady) female character. The Hobbit survived decades without a single female character (aside from the off-hand mentions of characters like Dis and Belladonna). It needed no female character.


And the fact that the producers added a woman to make the females in the audience happy is insulting to women. Do they think that we cannot like a story unless it has a prominent female character? I think they'll soon find that they're wrong there. When I was little I read many books that would be considered "boy books," and I loved them. I still do. I love the world of Middle-earth, even though many complain about how "male-dominated" it is. It isn't to me -- just look at the Sil! There are many "strong" women in there: Luthien, Galadriel, Aredhel, etc. Creating a female to bring a story "up to times" and satisfy a section of the audience is, to me, a slight, both to Tolkien and women.


2. Did that affect whether or not you were going to see the movie?
No, I was going to watch it anyways. However, I couldn't appreciate the first half of the movie because I was dreading certain scenes in Mirkwood (a place, that before reading spoilers, I had been looking forward to seeing) that I'd read about. Tauriel and the "love triangle" put a blot on the movie and diminished my viewing experience. That said, I now love other parts of DoS that I was unable to appreciate during my first viewing. It's just a shame that Tauriel's overblown scenes darkened parts of the movie that I would have otherwise liked.


3. Are you happy with the filmmakers decisions?
I think it should be obvious by now what I think about this decision. Wink I believe that Tauriel could have been a good addition had she not morphed into an Elven "Superwoman." The amount of time spent on her should have, in my opinion, been used on real characters. I'm hoping that this is remedied in BotFA, but I'm not going to hold my breath.




4. If you are not happy with Tauriel, what would you have preferred?
Honestly? No added major female characters at all. Tilda and Sigrid, although invented, are perfectly fine with me. I'm fine with Hilda Bianca and the other various female extras. Why? Because they don't take away from major scenes/characters. They have a few lines, but their characters aren't forced down the viewers' throats. Tauriel could have been the same way: unobtrusive, but still a presence. But she's not -- to me. Tauriel has featured prominently in almost every single piece of promotional material and that, for me, has not helped her case. Viewers don't like feeling like they're being forced to watch something; nobody does.


I would have also preferred that the "love triangle" had been left out of things. It's trite and tacky and does not add to the story. It was put there for a certain audience, but it really should have been cut out. People are going to come see these films no matter what. There will be people of every age who watch them no matter what. Forcing romance into a story that had none just for the expense of getting a particular group of the population into the theater is unnecessary. Members of that group will come for their own reasons; they don't need an "enticing romance" to draw them in.


Besides that, the "romance" detracts from the other notable Elf/Dwarf friendships/romances of the Third Age. Like Oleander Took posted above, what will people think when they see the friendship of Legolas and Gimli, Gimli's adoration for the Lady Galadriel, or the love story of Arwen and Aragorn? "Been there, done that." The impact of more powerful relationships is now affected by this, and that's not something I like.



In summary: To me, Tauriel goes against everything Tolkien ever wrote about women and Elves. In my reading of Middle-earth I got the feeling that women were valued and treasured, and not just for their looks (though I will concede that many of the men in Tolkien's world fell for women first for their beauty -- but they could also look beyond that and see the gem on the inside). I don't see that with Kili.


Women don't need to be "tough" or physically strong to be strong characters. Look at Arwen in the books: Never was she shown to engage in violence. What made her strong was her enduring love for a Man and the sacrifice she paid to be with him. I'm sure it wasn't an easy choice forsaking her family so she could be with Aragorn. Look at Eowyn: She was strong -- on the outside. Inside, she was terrified. She felt alone. She covered her fear with a desire to die honorably like a man. But she soon realized that fighting wasn't the most important thing in life. She fought an internal battle against her beliefs. Look at Luthien: She had power, yes. She faced down Morgoth, and that's no small feat! But was that what made her strong and renowned across the lands? No, it was her selflessness and willingness to go to the end of the world for Beren because she loved him that much.


Tauriel, to me, is, frankly, flat compared to these women. Her presence isn't compelling (to me) and her story isn't as beautiful or memorable as any of the women I mentioned above.


Before I get lambasted and called a "hater," I want to reiterate, as I've done throughout my post, that these are my thoughts. I value other posters' opinions and am not trying to sway anyone to any side, nor am I trying to criticize folks who do like her. I'm merely stating my thoughts on her. I would appreciate it if those who do find my post insulting in any way respectfully tell me why.


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Dec 6 2014, 8:10pm

Post #36 of 78 (1221 views)
Shortcut
I would argue the statement it would have made [In reply to] Can't Post

Would have been to place gender far more centre stage than the story merits, highlighting it through absence.

My own estimation would be that we would have seen far more critical discussion of the very unusual presentation of a large all male cast (without a closed setting).

I would also guess that in an adaptation that changed anything else, the authorial integrity defence would have been generally rejected by the ordinary audience and critics.


Magpie
Immortal


Dec 6 2014, 8:22pm

Post #37 of 78 (1234 views)
Shortcut
If I had more time and proper motivation... [In reply to] Can't Post

...I could write out quite a lot on what I think about Tauriel. As it is, I agree with many comments here but your summary is very close to how I feel.

So... what Oleander Took said.

And for what it's worth: demographic-wise I'm female and old. And an old feminist. lol.

(I know the OP asked what females think but I think some responses have been from males which is fine... but it makes it harder to sort out 'what females think' if one doesn't know which response is from a female and which is from a male)


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


Morthoron
Gondor


Dec 6 2014, 8:29pm

Post #38 of 78 (1214 views)
Shortcut
Political correctness aside.... [In reply to] Can't Post

Concentrating on the original story itself, a classic for generations with an established set of characters remembered fondly by boys and girls alike, would preclude any discussion about gender, as it would not be a talking point, given it is a reflection of the book, not some revisionist construct. I would counter that the intrusion of a farcical non-canon character has generated more negative feedback than if the director swallowed his hubris and let the original stand as is. This is even more evident in that Jackson is no where near the equal of Tolkien in a literary sense, and the scriptwriting is embarrassing -- case in point being the awkward romance/not romance pandering between Elf and Dwarf.

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Dec 6 2014, 8:38pm

Post #39 of 78 (1206 views)
Shortcut
Nothing to do with political correctness. [In reply to] Can't Post

But I wouldn't agree that the response to such a very unusual cast simply being a fact in the book would hold much water with ordinary folks.

If any other change was made (including DG, the bookend, anything) then surely the question would be why that, and not this.

On negative feedback I'm not sure that is the case. A good deal of reviews of DOS commented very positively on the addition.

More to the point, outside the esoteric discussions of fans, there has been very little discussion of gender, and what tiny comments there have been have been mostly positive. Perhaps our speculations differ, but I strongly suspect we would have seen a far greater focus on gender in critic/general audience responses if the cast had been so unusually exclusively male.


EomundDaughter
Lorien

Dec 6 2014, 9:08pm

Post #40 of 78 (1201 views)
Shortcut
What a great discussion...fellow ladies !! Thank you Tauriel and PJ !! [In reply to] Can't Post

Must admit...I found her character inspirational, powerful and also tragic...


Morthoron
Gondor


Dec 6 2014, 9:09pm

Post #41 of 78 (1198 views)
Shortcut
These "ordinary folks" of which you speak... [In reply to] Can't Post

I assume they are not part of the millions who have read The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings. I would suggest that the subject would not come up with anyone familiar with the books, and this would include the bulk of responsible journalists and critics, who would research the story if they were worth anything from a review standpoint; ergo, no one would clamor for or miss a superfluous fan-fiction Mary-Sue character thrown in for marketing purposes.

Therefore, these "ordinary folks" must not have ever heard of the stories and are completely oblivious to Tolkien, or perhaps literature in general. Would they be inclined to see the movie? Peter Jackson seems to throw in enough CGI pyrotechnics for those who have no literary bent and are going to the movies to see exploding things and beheadings. Either that, or the idea of an all-male cast is so repugnant that they stop up their ears whenever someone utters "Halfling", unwilling as they must be to subject themselves to the obvious gender bias of the original book.

We can't have the characters smoking tobacco, obviously, as impressionable teens are likely to smoke after watching Gandalf puff his pipe -- which as you know leads straight to heroin addiction. Perhaps Hobbits should reflect a revisionist need to throw in characters of various ethnicity and race, because they are all Caucasian in aspect, as are all the Elves and Dwarves. Then we must also look at the bias shown to homosexual and transgender people, because there are no same-sex relationships in Middle-earth. Although I've always wondered about Frodo and Sam. Wink

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



(This post was edited by Morthoron on Dec 6 2014, 9:10pm)


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Dec 6 2014, 9:23pm

Post #42 of 78 (1174 views)
Shortcut
No, not at all. It would include people with lots of different levels [In reply to] Can't Post

Of awareness, but certainly readers too.

I would completely disagree. The fact that it happens to be the case in the books would certainly not mean that it would be accepted without question by anyone aware of this fact, in my view.

That seems, at a more extreme level, like suggesting that no one who has read Huckleberry Finn would raise the issue of vocabulary choice in a family film adaptation made today. Surely not, in my estimation.

Would we expect any reader who knows the book contains a talking purse to never question its inclusion, or who knows that the book does not include events at DG to never question its omission?

It also seems slightly at odds with established facts. Many critics, who by your estimation and their own pieces are aware there were no female characters in TH have been very positive about their inclusion. So clearly they, as a sample, are not wedded to the idea that things which happen not to be in the book are beyond question or indeed approval.


(This post was edited by Spriggan on Dec 6 2014, 9:28pm)


arithmancer
Grey Havens


Dec 6 2014, 9:28pm

Post #43 of 78 (1200 views)
Shortcut
My views [In reply to] Can't Post

1. If it was going to add any, yes, it needed to add female characters.

2. No, I would watch any adaptation of one of Tolkien's Middle Earth stories.

3. Yes! Tauriel was a excellent addition. I particularly liked the "Feast of Starlight" scene, and her use in the script to clarify Thranduil's isolationism, by providing a different view.



CaptainObvious
Rivendell

Dec 6 2014, 9:34pm

Post #44 of 78 (1182 views)
Shortcut
First, I'd like to thank all the ladies who responded thus far. [In reply to] Can't Post

I enjoyed reading everyone's comments. As a guy, I often have no clue about the feminine perspective, but it seems a lot of you agree with me. Cirashala raised a couple excellent points. Tauriel, definitely was NOT captain material. There were a number of moments in both films when I thought, "If she was a guy, she'd be put to death for doing this." Namely the scene where she threatens Thranduil. If she'd been a guy, he would have turned her into chop liver at that point.

However, I do think the idea of Tauriel had merit. I'm glad Bernhardina and MedwedtoBeorn's neice like Tauriel. However, I do feel so much more could have been done to make her an actual character as opposed to a plot device.

Were any of you turned off by Kili and Tauriel's initial exchange? I immediately thought the romance plot line was going to fail when Kili's opening line to Tauriel was a lewd comment. Basically, I feel if this video had been filmed in Middle Earth, Kili would have been one of the guys in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A

The only moment when I thought the romance had any potential was when Kili and Tauriel were talking in the dungeon, about starlight. Because then Kili wasn't being obnoxious. They were having a decent conversation, where he was listening to her. It wasn't enough of a conversation to justify them immediately falling in love, but at least Kili wasn't being vulgar.

Still, you'd think a six hundred year old woman would have more sense than to risk having children that would have to shave by the time they're four.


Cirashala
Tol Eressea


Dec 6 2014, 9:48pm

Post #45 of 78 (1198 views)
Shortcut
maybe the generalization was a bit much (BO5A spoilers) [In reply to] Can't Post

But I could care less if Tauriel was a duck, if her story inclusion made sense.

Adding a female wasn't the problem- I applaud the filmmakers for showing that Middle-earth had more than just male characters at the time of TH. It was the way she was utilized that I have issue with.

For example (and this isn't necessarily a reply to you specifically Starling, but more a general thought after reading all the flat view posts above this one), what if we swapped the genders? What if Tauriel was the male, and Kili was the female here? Would Tauriel's plotline still be an issue?

And to answer that, I'd say yes. Her gender doesn't matter here for me as much as the story she was given. If Tauriel were a male, who did everything that the character did in the films, the story would still be questionable as to its validity and plausibility in the context of the world.

If Thranduil is so patient as to be able to wait 100 years, and if 100 years is but a blink of an eye to him, how can we expect an elf to fall in love with a dwarf in such a short span of time? She has all the time in the world- why so fast? He's not even old by dwarf standards, though he's undoubtedly young in years compared to her. If it weren't for the battle, he'd have at least 173 years left to live (going by average dwarf lifespan of 250).

I do think it is beautiful what they did with her and Kili in DOS. The feast of Starlight scene was definitely among my favorites. But the way they've handled her character arc, as described in detail by some who have seen the movie, for me kind of ruins the idea that she's a heroic warrior elf who happens to be female.

Her story arc was poorly written, IMHO. It's not that I didn't enjoy her in DOS- far from it! But I think they went too far with her in BO5A is all. The ONE thing I was hoping would be included from the book- seriously, the one thing- was that Kili and Fili would die defending a mortally wounded Thorin. Out of all the things in the book that stood out to me, that was it (along with Thorin's apology to Bilbo).

I am not normally a purist by any means at all (I've liked most of the content in the films). But I was hoping that their end would be as heroic as Tolkien wrote.

Tauriel's inclusion into the films was necessary, I enjoyed seeing a female in the film who was a good representation of feminine energy (along with Galadriel, though admittedly she barely featured in DOS).

But my problem is not with her gender- it's with how her story arc plays out in BO5A. And if she were male, I'd still have a problem with it, simply because it's a poor writing choice.

I challenge those who are debating her gender back and forth to analyze her arc as if she were a male, and see if they still reach the same conclusion. Gender isn't the issue- her storyline is.



Morthoron
Gondor


Dec 6 2014, 9:51pm

Post #46 of 78 (1156 views)
Shortcut
Oh well.... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
I would completely disagree. The fact that it happens to be the case in the books would certainly not mean that it would be accepted without question by anyone aware of this fact, in my view.



Then we are at an impasse. And I certainly would be uninterested in a remake of a classic war epic like Lawrence of Arabia because the new director felt it necessary to pander to audiences by requiring T.E. Lawrence to have a romance with an imaginary Bedouin beauty who battles the Turks by his side simply because there were no women in the original cast. But by all means, purchase your tickets.




Quote
That seems, at a more extreme level, like suggesting that no one who has read Huckleberry Finn would raise the issue of vocabulary choice in a family film adaptation made today. Surely not, in my estimation.



There are rabid censors who wish to eliminate Huckleberry Finn from libraries due to its content, when in fact the book is an integral and very important piece of who we were as a nation, and how we looked at each other from a racial standpoint. I look at Bowdlerizing Mark Twain as dangerous and dumb as the insipid original Bowdler tried to purify Shakespeare.




Quote
Would we expect any reader who knows the book contains a talking purse to never question it's inclusion, or who knows that the book does not include events at DG to never question it's omission?



The troll has a talking purse? That's outrageous! I want my imaginary trolls to be as realistic as possible. I was having a discussion at tea with my Yeti friend the other day -- who, by the way, is not as abominable as the gossips say -- and we both agreed that trolls are portrayed far too cartoonishly in modern film.



Quote

It also seems slightly at odds with established facts. Many critics, who by your estimation and their own pieces are aware there were no female characters in TH have been very positive about their inclusion. So clearly they, as a sample, are not wedded to the idea that things which happen not to be in the book are beyond question or indeed approval.



Just as many critics have been...ummm...critical of the obvious additions by Jackson cluttering up the landscape of Middle-earth, in particular the wince-inducing quasi-love scenes between Tauriel and her unrequited Dwarf lover/not-lover.
While I appreciate you have a differing opinion, I don't think the absence of Tauriel would have affected the film negatively in the slightest bit, save for the folks who complain there are no African or Asian Hobbits; in which case, I would suggest they would complain nonetheless.

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Dec 6 2014, 10:03pm

Post #47 of 78 (1145 views)
Shortcut
Here you are arguing for one side or the other, which is not my point. [In reply to] Can't Post

My point was that it would be a matter of discussion and focus.

You went on to say that no one who had read the book would so much as raise the question, as they would automatically accept that there should be no such revisions in adapting for the screen.

My examples are in response to that. Whether or not you think it is good to have particular racial terminology in a hypothetical film of Huckleberry Finn is not at issue. The question is would it be a matter of much focus and discussion or not (on your basis that no one who had read the book or researched it would think it was worth discussion)?


Morthoron
Gondor


Dec 6 2014, 10:35pm

Post #48 of 78 (1132 views)
Shortcut
As I said, we are at an impasse... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
You went on to say that no one who had read the book would so much as raise the question, as they would automatically accept that there should be no such revisions in adapting for the screen.


First, there is the director's arrogance in adding a major character at all, male or female, to which I believe Tolkien would refer to as "impertinent" or perhaps "impudent". When we refer to people that read the books, I assume, based on decades of Tolkien discussion, that fan-fiction elements should remain in fan-fiction stories and not impinge on the original. One only has to look at Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring and Arwen's presence at the Ford battling the Nazgul as a scene that most Tolkien readers found irritating, if not downright ludicrous. It is forced Jacksonism and not representative of Tolkien whatsoever; however, readers and casual audiences cheered when Eowyn defeated the WitchKing. Like everything else in the movies, when the story follows Tolkien's original, and even though lines may be given to another character, the story rings true.

So, would Tolkien readers miss an extra character that never had a place in canon and doesn't necessarily fit Tolkien's narrative? I maintain the vast majority would not. Except for you and three other people, of course. Wink

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



(This post was edited by Morthoron on Dec 6 2014, 10:36pm)


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Dec 6 2014, 10:46pm

Post #49 of 78 (1120 views)
Shortcut
Well we might be but it seems like different impasses. [In reply to] Can't Post

Again you are discussing the outcome of the question, one way or the other, not whether it would be a matter of discussion and focus for critics and the general audience (including many readers).

Your argument was they would not bother to discuss it because they simply reject any revisions. I'm saying they would discuss it and offered some examples to back up the fact that people do not simply accept that revisions should never be made and therefore do discuss such things.

But you keep offering views on what the right answers to such questions would be rather that the issue of whether the questions would be discussed on the first place.

I don't know if I'm being very difficult to follow


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

Dec 6 2014, 10:57pm

Post #50 of 78 (1124 views)
Shortcut
I loved Arwen's moment. [In reply to] Can't Post

I found Arwen's moment with the Nazgul perfectly acceptable. For one thing, Arwen was an actual character in Lord of the Rings. For another, the scene with the Nazgul and the river happened in the book. Even though Arwen usurped the role of Glorfindel, I thought that the scene was great. And Arwen is more interesting than Glorfindel.

However, Peter Jackson has strayed so far from the path in making The Hobbit, as to get completely lost with these new non Tolkien plots. And the sad thing is, I believe Jackson has already shot enough footage that when properly edited would have made an amazing Hobbit movie.


Morthoron
Gondor


Dec 6 2014, 11:08pm

Post #51 of 78 (429 views)
Shortcut
Well... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
Again you are discussing the outcome of the question, one way or the other, not whether it would be a matter of discussion and focus for critics and the general audience (including many readers).


Would it be discussed? Perhaps, but not in any negligible way. As I mentioned off-handedly in a previous post, there were complaints that Hobbits were smoking pipeweed in LotR. Did these complaints mount to a hill of beans? No. Did the fact that Hobbits smoked cause teens to flock to the cigarette counter? No more so than when reading the books. Would the enjoyment factor of the movie be lessened in any appreciable way without Tauriel's character? Be honest, it would not. If one were honest, seeing Legolas all blue-eyed and bloated is disconcerting as well. Paraphrasing Samwise, it is "unnatural".

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



Morthoron
Gondor


Dec 6 2014, 11:19pm

Post #52 of 78 (432 views)
Shortcut
Actually... [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Quote
I found Arwen's moment with the Nazgul perfectly acceptable. For one thing, Arwen was an actual character in Lord of the Rings. For another, the scene with the Nazgul and the river happened in the book. Even though Arwen usurped the role of Glorfindel, I thought that the scene was great. And Arwen is more interesting than Glorfindel.

However, Peter Jackson has strayed so far from the path in making The Hobbit, as to get completely lost with these new non Tolkien plots. And the sad thing is, I believe Jackson has already shot enough footage that when properly edited would have made an amazing Hobbit movie.


There were a lot of people upset that Glorfindel was omitted when the movie was released (and still are, if you look at various posts), but I recall that even more people were upset that Arwen upstaged a very crucial scene for Frodo. In the book, Frodo bravely stood alone on the banks of the Bruinen and defied the Nazgul. In the movie, he was no more than a bawling baby (and people complain that the movie version of Frodo is whiny and not as brave as book Frodo), completely paralyzed, while Arwen somehow manifested a magic she did not possess and called the river down on the Ringwraiths. Even stranger still, her character did a complete 360 thereafter and became meek, weak and teary-eyed, forcing her father Elrond to moan that famously absurd line, "Arwen is dying!"

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Dec 6 2014, 11:19pm

Post #53 of 78 (419 views)
Shortcut
Super. So we agree it would be discussed. [In reply to] Can't Post

Now we are down to degrees.

Now, I think it would be discussed a great deal more than pipes - very few kids smoke pipes! My logic would be just how unusual an all male cast would be.

Very few films have ever been made with an all male cast, and that number drops to the low single digits in the last few decades. I can't think of a trilogy that has ever done so.

What female-free films there are tend to be set in closed environments (jury rooms, prisons, ships etc.) A film that travels across half a world, encountering various civilisations would be even more extraordinary.

I think, putting these factors together, it would in some ways be unprecedented and so, though of course there is no indisputable evidence that exists, this would have been a subject of considerable discussion amongst critics and the general audience alike.


Milieuterrien
Rohan

Dec 6 2014, 11:30pm

Post #54 of 78 (433 views)
Shortcut
No narrative treason in Tauriel [In reply to] Can't Post

I feel It's no use asking a movie to copy "the original" when 'the original' is a book and the movie is... a movie. It's not as if someone would play a theater piece changing bits of it, for the theater piece has been written in order to be shown on stage.
When JRR Tolkien wrote his Hobbit, he never thought it could be put on screen, he didn't know there was a LOTR Trilogy to come, and it seems he kept thinking through many years that his Hobbit had to be re-written.

And Tolkien never achieved to re-write his Hobbit. Instead, he chose to sell the rights of both the Hobbit and LOTR to movie-makers. In order for them to be able to make money with this material, and so secure his family's earnings.
What did PJackson do ? He used the licence to actually film 3 movies out of LOTR, then 3 other movies out of The Hobbit. Each one earning... about 1 billion dollars. For me, I'll take treasons of that ilk every day, if I could.

Any joke apart, where is the narrative treason of the 'original' ?
Is it much a treason to have Kili die defending an elf instead of defending his uncle ?
Wasn't he trying to protect his own uncle while trying to save a brilliant elf-fighter which could have help more after she had already saved his own life and the life of other dwarves many times before ?

So, where is the treason of the 'original' ?


Morthoron
Gondor


Dec 6 2014, 11:36pm

Post #55 of 78 (411 views)
Shortcut
I, of course, disagree... [In reply to] Can't Post

Many war pictures have only incidental female characters. Many critics -- current critics -- consider Lawrence of Arabia as one of the greatest movies of all time, and if I recall only one woman had a speaking part, and that one line. Again, current critics. Saving Private Ryan had only incidental female participation and won five Academy Awards. Considering Bilbo and the Dwarves are on a quest that leads them through the Wilderlands, over the Misty Mountains and to Erebor to meet a dragon, why would a female character play anything but an incidental role? Although you don't know it, you are being revisionist.

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



Milieuterrien
Rohan

Dec 6 2014, 11:47pm

Post #56 of 78 (410 views)
Shortcut
Please don't forget... [In reply to] Can't Post

... Middle-Earth is a fictional world.
It's not useful to compare it with the real world. For example, the Thin Red Line world, which happen to be WWII in Pacific Islands, where, of course, you can't imagine to find any female warriors on the US side.

This part of Middle-Earth doesn't belong to Human history, that is the only tangible reality
The narrative rights belong to who owns them after having bought them from JRR Tolkien himself
There is no reality here, and 'fan-fiction' there. It's all fiction, and nothing else.

Keep your feet on the ground, and you'll just feel better about those movies.


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Dec 6 2014, 11:51pm

Post #57 of 78 (397 views)
Shortcut
Well, they are also visiting lots of places where lots of females would be. [In reply to] Can't Post

The Shire, Rivendell, the Halls of the Elvenking, Laketown, as well as the places you mention.

As I say, almost any of the handful of films with no females in the cast have very specific "closed sets" like historical military operations, as in the examples you mention.

Lawrence, as you know was made over 50 years ago and Saving Private Ryan is one of those single digit more recent ones, though even that is 16 years old ( and a small team of WW2 soldiers on a mission behind enemy lines is certainly a "closed set"!)

Neither is a trilogy or runs to 8 hours. We are also, I should have noted, talking about films with an enormous ensemble cast, not the Dirty Dozen.

An all male Hobbit trilogy would, in my view, have been an extreme outlier and would no doubt have been heavily discussed in relation to this.


(This post was edited by Spriggan on Dec 6 2014, 11:56pm)


Morthoron
Gondor


Dec 7 2014, 12:07am

Post #58 of 78 (399 views)
Shortcut
Turn off your mind, thinking makes it hurt... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
This part of Middle-Earth doesn't belong to Human history, that is the only tangible reality
The narrative rights belong to who owns them after having bought them from JRR Tolkien himself
There is no reality here, and 'fan-fiction' there. It's all fiction, and nothing else.




Taking your premise to the extreme, I suppose you wouldn't mind an all-nude pornographic version. Gives a whole new meaning to "Bag-end", eh?


Quote
Keep your feet on the ground, and you'll just feel better about those movies.



I've been told that smothering liver in onions and catsup makes it better. Nope, it's still liver.

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



(This post was edited by Morthoron on Dec 7 2014, 12:09am)


Milieuterrien
Rohan

Dec 7 2014, 12:07am

Post #59 of 78 (389 views)
Shortcut
The Unexpected Journey was without girl characters [In reply to] Can't Post

So, you can't tell it is as if PJ and Co would force female characters presence at all costs.

Maybe they should have done.
You won't have to push far : Just imagine some pair of female bearded dwarves belonging to the thirteen...
Surely their memorable presence would have ensure an even bigger gross to the trilogy ;-)


Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Dec 7 2014, 12:11am

Post #60 of 78 (388 views)
Shortcut
Discuss the topic, not personalities please. [In reply to] Can't Post

Disagreement is fine; insulting someone else because they disagree is not. Time to move on, maybe?

Silverlode



Want a LOTR Anniversary footer of your own? Get one here!

"Dark is the water of Kheled-zram, and cold are the springs of Kibil-nla, and fair were the many-pillared halls of Khazad-dm in Elder Days before the fall of mighty kings beneath the stone."



Milieuterrien
Rohan

Dec 7 2014, 12:18am

Post #61 of 78 (382 views)
Shortcut
We're talking about PJ's choices about Tauriel... [In reply to] Can't Post

... We're not talking about some extreme interpretation of my statement, which is a simple report.

Not that some kind of nudity wouldn't have sell, in a heroic fantasy world.
Have you heard about Game of Thrones ?

Had LOTR being filmed by Ridley Scott we should be maybe talking about a nude Galadriel.. remember that.


Morthoron
Gondor


Dec 7 2014, 12:27am

Post #62 of 78 (383 views)
Shortcut
Ummm, Silverlode... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
Disagreement is fine; insulting someone else because they disagree is not. Time to move on, maybe?


Who is insulting someone on a personal level? You are replying to my last post, so I assume you are referring to me. Where, pray tell is someone being insulted? I see a difference of opinion. If you would be so kind as to point out what exactly is an insult under the T.O.S., I'd be happy to oblige.
Otherwise, I am getting the feeling reasonable dissent against the movies is being quashed. In which case, I suggest changing the motto "Forged by and for fans of JRR Tolkien" to the more appropriate "Forged by and for fans of PJ Jackson".
But I'll bow out for now.

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Dec 7 2014, 12:39am

Post #63 of 78 (382 views)
Shortcut
Well... [In reply to] Can't Post

your subject line seems to imply that the other person's brain is hurt by thinking, and then you imply that their argument could be equally applied to pornography. That seems to me to be leaving the topic and nearing personal remark territory. At best, those are the sort of remarks which quickly derail a conversation away from the point, as the other person usually feels compelled to repudiate the insinuation.

I'm merely reminding everyone not to go there. If you feel you can carry on the debate without drifting into a personal tit-for-tat, by all means do so.

Silverlode



Want a LOTR Anniversary footer of your own? Get one here!

"Dark is the water of Kheled-zram, and cold are the springs of Kibil-nla, and fair were the many-pillared halls of Khazad-dm in Elder Days before the fall of mighty kings beneath the stone."



MatthewJer18
Rohan

Dec 7 2014, 12:41am

Post #64 of 78 (367 views)
Shortcut
No dissent is being quashed at all. [In reply to] Can't Post

These mods run a very fair, open forum. To suggest otherwise is a little strange.

But suggesting that someone's brain is hurt does not contribute to a reasonable discussion.


(This post was edited by MatthewJer18 on Dec 7 2014, 12:41am)


Morthoron
Gondor


Dec 7 2014, 12:54am

Post #65 of 78 (367 views)
Shortcut
In my defense.... [In reply to] Can't Post

The title "Turn off your mind, thinking makes it hurt..." was in reply to the statement "Keep your feet on the ground, and you'll just feel better about those movies", as in "If I think with my feet rather than my brain, I might actually enjoy the films and not fill my head with all this complaint nonsense." As for the pornographic version of The Hobbit, the other poster seems excited for its release. In 3-D, and directed by Ridley Scott!

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Dec 7 2014, 12:59am

Post #66 of 78 (345 views)
Shortcut
Hmmm. Perhaps it was unintentional [In reply to] Can't Post

But as a reader I would interpret only one of those as insulting.


Milieuterrien
Rohan

Dec 7 2014, 1:10am

Post #67 of 78 (340 views)
Shortcut
I didn't fear for my brain or anyone's brain here. [In reply to] Can't Post

The point is that Tolkien sold his copyrights : that fact is what opened the door to Tauriel.

Then, any book-to-movie adaptation can hurt Tolkien's 'soul' and some his supporters alike. Any bit of adaptation, really. Not only adaptations of the story itself, but also adaptations of the kind of Universes created by Tolkien as a whole.
For instance, Game of Thrones is one kind of movie-to-movie adaptation : It took some of the receipes that made Tolkien/Jackson's LOTR successful, but turned them into loads of graphics... which are no 'over-the-top CGI', but questionable nevertheless.

Of course, nobody can be sure that giving JRR Tolkien's opus into the hands of the former author of 'Bad Taste' was a comprehensive insurence,
but if there is a Peter Jackson's 'treason', it's still waiting to be proven on this movie, in my opinion.

For me, I don't see any treason nor profanity in Tauriel's character.
I would be glad if it helps to show that success can still be found in a Heroic Fantasy movie without the Game of Thrones receipes.


Milieuterrien
Rohan

Dec 7 2014, 2:01am

Post #68 of 78 (333 views)
Shortcut
Isn't it what Silverlode [In reply to] Can't Post

asked not to do ?
By the way I don't think my commentaries show anything going where you pretend they go, thus, for me and I suppose for anyone it's self-evident that pornography can't be a fleet flag for any argument.

I suppose you may have been puzzled by the fact I spoke about Ridley Scott ; but he is a very respected artist indeed, and he has managed to be exciting in many ways. The simple fact is, when a LOTR project happened to get into his hands, it has been reported that he imagined a sexual relation between Galadriel and Frodo.
But it was another era, as we all know - I mean, my generation. Those things were perceived very differently then, almost nobody, especially young cineasts as he used to be then, could imagine making movies without explicitation and fornication : that was viewed as 'pure' and 'natural'.
But I'm not sure that "excitement" was the purpose for avant-garde's stuff, the way it surely has become in Game of Thrones era.

My own imagination being far poorer than those of cineasts, I just can't imagine what a much older Ridley Scott would do with The Hobbit today, and of course I hardly imagine he would commit anything 'pornographic' with the Hobbit, even with a 3D-camera temptation.
Surely, as the story pushes so many males around, their group nature could be some kind of 'track', even without any Tauriel around ;-)

But for that kind of stuff, i'm more than already satisfied with what PJ did with the Dwarves whipping each other in Elrond's pool, in AUJ extended edition :-)))
I even think I get the internal joke now.


(This post was edited by Milieuterrien on Dec 7 2014, 2:12am)


Milieuterrien
Rohan

Dec 7 2014, 2:44am

Post #69 of 78 (313 views)
Shortcut
Ridley Scott... nope, John Boorman [In reply to] Can't Post

Eww... to my confusion, John Boorman, not Ridley Scott, had LOTR scenario into his hands.
Both were born in the 1930's and did some fine heroic fantasy movies (Legend, Willow, Ladyhawke for Scott ; Excalibur for Boorman),
but Frodo in Galadriel's bed was Boorman's idea.


Starling
Half-elven


Dec 7 2014, 4:17am

Post #70 of 78 (320 views)
Shortcut
I don't find the script writing embarrassing [In reply to] Can't Post

I like it. The Tauriel / Kili storyline in DOS is a highlight for me.
I guess Tolkien would be nowhere near the equal of Jackson as a film maker.


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Dec 7 2014, 4:28am

Post #71 of 78 (339 views)
Shortcut
I know this is geared towards the ladies... [In reply to] Can't Post

...but I'll just add that I think Tauriel could have been a fine addition if she were used sparingly. The love story and the fact that the writers are ramming her (and Legolas) down our throats ruins it for me.


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Dec 7 2014, 4:46am

Post #72 of 78 (318 views)
Shortcut
100% true... [In reply to] Can't Post

Those who have never read the books have no expectations of what the story should be. So they would not have been clamoring for a 150-years-dead Orc chasing Thorin across the north, an Elf/Dwarf romance, or Thorin surfing a river of molten gold in a wheelbarrow and standing on Smaug's snout.

They could have done a script that was much closer to the source material, and the general audience wouldn't have batted an eye.


(This post was edited by Salmacis81 on Dec 7 2014, 4:46am)


Elizabeth
Half-elven


Dec 7 2014, 8:19am

Post #73 of 78 (315 views)
Shortcut
Yes, no, no, and ... [In reply to] Can't Post

1. Do you think the Hobbit needed to add major female characters?
I was perfectly happy with no females in The Hobbit book. But given the scale of these epics, it would have been unrealistic to have no female characters.

2. Did that affect whether or not you were going to see the movie?
Not at all.

3.Are you happy with the filmmakers decisions?
No. I am offended by the thought that they needed a romance angle to justify their inserted female.

4. If you are not happy with Tauriel, what would you have preferred?
A competent member of the Elven guard, doing her job.

FWIW, my granddaughter, age 12, adores these movies. But she (and her female friends) hates Tauriel, because even at their age they can instantly detect that she is a caricature and lacks any authentic plausibility.








NecromancerRising
Gondor


Dec 7 2014, 9:09am

Post #74 of 78 (300 views)
Shortcut
No,No,Yes, [In reply to] Can't Post

And for the record, since some folks here share the personal views of their family,my mother(56),my aunt(52) my sister(20) and her female friends love Tauriel and her relationship with Kili.

"You cannot find peace by avoiding life"


Milieuterrien
Rohan

Dec 7 2014, 9:54am

Post #75 of 78 (296 views)
Shortcut
All Jackson's elves are a due caricature [In reply to] Can't Post

as well as his dwarves and most of his men characters.
He knows how to push some tendencies further and deeper until they reach their limits, which are violent or tragic endings.

isn't it a very classical way of telling tales ?

In their own way, Tolkien's races are also caricatures of human tendencies :
'too perfect' elves, 'too stubborn' dwarves, 'too unperfect' humans
and the hobbits in the middle, unexpectedly decisive while in fact nobody would imagine they could be, due to their size and weekness, which is also a clich

Then some few heroes emerge, mixing the good balance of proud and humility, so they are crowned in the end
which is ALSO a clich.

Of course Tauriel is a caricature, excessive in many ways.
The real question is : is she a stunning one ?

Furthermore, I don't think she was a PJ's idea in the beginning.
I don't forget he's not the only scenarist onboard.


(This post was edited by Milieuterrien on Dec 7 2014, 9:56am)


Bard'sBlackArrow
Lorien


Dec 7 2014, 9:01pm

Post #76 of 78 (213 views)
Shortcut
Not a fan [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I'm not thrilled with the character. But one of my friends six year old daughter looks up to me, and I know that every time I show her a trailer for an upcoming movie on my labtop, she says to me, "What does the girl do?" So I would like to present a question to you. In your PERSONAL opinion,

1. Do you think the Hobbit needed to add major female characters?
2. Did that affect whether or not you were going to see the movie?
3.Are you happy with the filmmakers decisions?
4. If you are not happy with Tauriel, what would you have preferred?

Thanks!


1) No.
2) No, but it will impact how many times I see/watch this trilogy going forward.
3) NO.
4) A dwarven female or nothing at all, we've seen enough elven culture between both trilogies. But more importantly than that, a female character who is part of the universe not forced in. It really became anything you can I do I can do better and then silly...if she was well written/acted and felt like a part of the universe, well that would be another story wouldn't it?

As a woman I do not feel there has to be female or of a specific ethic background. if I love a character I do not care what they are. If you write characters people care about they will love them, regardless.

but I am not the screenwriters (thank goodness) nor WB and so what do I know? :D

... on the other side of tomorrow...


lionoferebor
Rohan

Dec 9 2014, 2:18am

Post #77 of 78 (185 views)
Shortcut
The "need" for a Female Character [In reply to] Can't Post

For starters, I am female.

1. Do you think the Hobbit needed to add major female characters?
No, the book has been around for the past 75 plus years and has withstood the test of time without a major female character. This said, I'm okay with Galadriel's addition because she is a Tolkien character and the story centered around her and the White Council does have an impact on overall scheme of things. As for Tauriel, I can't say her presence has added anything to the story, though I can say it has definitely taken away from it.

2. Did that affect whether or not you were going to see the movie?
No.

3.Are you happy with the filmmakers decisions?
I'm okay with Galadriel. As I said before she's a Tolkien character and her presence with the White Council does have an impact on the overall story. Also, it is my understanding the filmmakers felt the story needed a strong female character. You can't get much stronger than Galadriel, so the addition/creation of another female was not necessary.

4. If you are not happy with Tauriel, what would you have preferred?
Aside from Galadriel, I would've love to have seen Dis - Thorin's sister; Fili and Kili's mother - back in Ered Luin and how she copes with their absences. (I figure if we can break off from the Company to galavant with Gandalf, why not pay a visit to Ered Luin once in a while). Also, seeing she's been through the same hardships as Thorin, and what she faces after her family is wiped out, I would say she is a very strong female character. I really think we could've gotten a deeper understanding of Thorin, Fili, and Kili through her.


Elentari03
Rivendell

Dec 9 2014, 3:45pm

Post #78 of 78 (155 views)
Shortcut
Absolutely agree. [In reply to] Can't Post

Your answer perfectly sums up what should and could have been, and what went wrong. It feels a bit patronizing that 1) they thought they had to include a female to pander to women, and 2) she had to be involved in a romantic plot.

 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.