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:
A case for Tauriel - different yet same as canon characters
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Semper Fi
Rohan


Aug 18 2013, 11:20pm

Post #1 of 63 (1714 views)
Shortcut
A case for Tauriel - different yet same as canon characters Can't Post

I'm trying to make a case for the saga's most controversial character and point out some double standards. Since I'm not a lawyer I imagine my case for Tauriel will be clunky so I apologize for the lack of competence. This is all in good faith for I think that she is no different from other Tolkien characters in good traits as well as some ho-hum ones.

Let it fly in the breeze
And get caught in the trees
Give a home to the flees in my hair

Hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair,
Flow it, show it
Long as God can grow it
My hair

Hair, Cast of Hair the Musical

Case for prosecution: Tauriel's hair is way too long so any Orc can grab it. This is just ridiculous.

Case for defense: Hair grabbing and hair pulling haven't been a practice in either Tolkien books or LOTR/Hobbit movies, so it's hard to believe that Tauriel's copper mane will suddenly change standards of warcraft into standards of catfight. There are several characters in LOTR movies with long, flowing hair that could easily be grabbed, yet nobody took advantage of it. Arwen's flowing mane was almost touched by the closeness of her Black Rider pursuers yet none of them thought they should pull her hair and pull her off the horse jealous girlfriend style. Lurtz's long dreads could have given Aragorn a tactical advantage had he grabbed a handful of them yet such a thought never crossed his mind. Even Eowyn's rather ceremonial hair spill out of her helmet in both book and movie didn't give the Witch King an idea to get catty with it. Bottom line is, in the world of long-haired warriors on various sides, hair-pulling simply isn't a warrior skill that anyone is trained to perform in the battle. It belongs in the catfight since it's an alpha and omega of that kind of a fight. Call it sexist but men's world doesn't practice this effective and painful move and Tauriel operates in that world. Her enemies are male Orcs. If she gets into catfight with other Elf women that has nothing to do with how she will perform against a male enemy and how they will fight against her.

On the side note, Aragorn's wet/greasy hair falling into his eyes during fights is a bigger problem that nobody harps on. The reason is quite simple - he cannot see well when he is supposed to achieve tactical precision. At least give it to Legolas and Tauriel that their hair is pulled away from their faces and firmly secured so their vision is clear at all times. Unlike Aragorn's frequently blocked vision.

STIKE FIRST STRIKE HARD NO MERCY SIR!

We do not study to be merciful here. Mercy is for the weak...a man confronts you he is the enemy and enemy deserves no mercy!

Cobra Kai, Karate Kid

You probably heard we aint in the prisoner taking business, we're in the killing Nazi business and cousin, business is a boomin'

Aldo Raine, Inglorious Bastards



Case for prosecution: Tauriel is so unlikable! She is described as a ruthless killer, a killing machine and someone who you don't want to meet in a dark alley. That's so anti-Elvish! Elves are supposed to be merciful, compassionate and gentle, not like this video game character!

Case for defense: Tauriel is a full-time military Elf. A professional soldier. She is the captain of the most elite military unit, King's Guard, who are the Green Berets of Mirkwood Army. Evie used a term Mirkwood ninjas but I prefer to link her team to special forces because ninjas are basically mercenaries which King's Guard isn't. The Green Berets of Mirkwood do what all special forces do - long range recon, ambushing, sabotage, quick task response, etc. Unless it's specified to capture a valuable target for interrogation, these guys aren't into prisoner-taking business and don't deal with characters who deserve mercy and compassion. They fight against the baddest of the bad. They are good at killing since that's what they are trained for and have no regrets because their targets are bad people.

On the side note, for marketing purposes, it's very likely that emphasis is given on badass because it doesn't provide the lull in action. When a new character is introduced, adolescent boys who are the primary target audience for these movies (sorry book lovers!) are always concerned that there would be too much talking at the expense of action. So by slapping action-fuelled labels such as "a killing machine" they assure the audience with a short attention span that there will be plenty of action courtesy of the new character. It does not mean that she'll be a killing machine in relation to people she cares for or grows a like.

It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

Mark Twain

Case for prosecution: Tauriel is such a Mary Sue! She had to underline that "this IS out fight" because she's a chick and more gung-ho than Legolas. Can't you even believe that? Legolas hesitates to fight but this Mary Sue is all pumped up because she's a girl! Ugh!

Case for defense: Tauriel's "fight" line is hardly something specific for her. Eowyn also had a fight line ("I can fight!") when Théoden wasn't so sure or pumped and Arwen had a variation of "I'm more gung-ho than my man" when she said "I'm a faster rider. I'm not afraid of them" implying that Aragorn is inferior rider who also fears the Black Riders at least a little bit. Unlike his girlfriend. So this gung-ho girl - reluctant boy situation is nothing new in these movies or in movies in general. Even the last Twilight movie had Bella giving several fight lines that heavily featured in the trailers.

From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time.

Friedrich August von Hayek

Case for prosecution: Tauriel has no business in The Hobbit. She is a made-up character who will alter the story so it won't be the story we grew to love.

Case for defense: How's a made up character different from canon character and canon plots going through alterations that change them from what we grew to love? If anything, creation (such as Tauriel) is lesser problem than poorly re-written canon character. The reason is quite simple - with a new character there's no previous emotional investment. You take him/her at face value. OTOH, canon character comes with a baggage and familiarity that he or she is a certain way. Therefore, giving them made-up actions and made-up dialog is no different from having a completely made-up character...except that out of character changes will rub the wrong way far more. There's more outrage over Frodo sending Sam away or evil Faramir than over inclusion of made-up Lurtz.
So in the end of the day, Tauriel is not much different from canon characters going through a makeover. Both aren't in the book - she at all while they turned out different on the screen which is almost like creating a new character altogether. Different but same.












"RadagaStoner deserves no mercy!" Tauriel the Radagast Slayer, the Chief of Inglorious Elfguards



Nira
Lorien


Aug 18 2013, 11:51pm

Post #2 of 63 (844 views)
Shortcut
well said. I'm rooting for Tauriel. [In reply to] Can't Post

My only disagreement would be that she is the most controversial character. I hold that the whole Azog characterization is more controversial, at least on this forum.

"Why, to think of it, we're in the same tale still! It's going on. Don't the great tales never end?" -Samwise

(This post was edited by Nira on Aug 18 2013, 11:51pm)


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2013, 11:57pm

Post #3 of 63 (893 views)
Shortcut
I don't see a case for Tauriel [In reply to] Can't Post

What I do see is people trying to legitimize her as something Tolkien would have approved of or something that is good for the story. IMHO though the only one who can write a character that Tolkien would have approved of is Tolkien himself....Personally I don't know if she is good or bad in what Jackson has done with her yet because I haven't seen her on the screen yet. What I have seen I'm not impressed with anyways... I will however say I do Not think she is good for the Hobbit which by all accounts is not what we are getting on film anyways. I just find it funny how no one as seen the character but yet people are blindly willing to make up excuses for her existence in the films and defend the character.

Honestly she doesn't remind me of any canon characters, and whatever they have in store for us with her I'm sure will not match the brilliance of what Tolkien wrote. But that is just my opinion. Unsure


(This post was edited by sinister71 on Aug 18 2013, 11:58pm)


arithmancer
Grey Havens


Aug 19 2013, 12:14am

Post #4 of 63 (830 views)
Shortcut
Looking forward to her [In reply to] Can't Post

I am looking forward to seeing Tauriel in the movie. I think I may enjoy her and her interactions with Legolas and Thranduil.

I do think her hair is too long as a practical matter - it's less about Orcs pulling it in fights, and more about it tangling in everything (it seems to be consideraby longer than that of any of the other characters you mention, reaching down are far as her knees). But this does not bother me because...it's so pretty! For me I can consider it unrealistic but enjoy seeing it at the same time. Like the ridiculous size of the (flail? not sure of the correct name of this weapon) used by the Lord of the Nazgul in his duel with Eowyn. It did make the scene more visually dramatic though.

(Though, actually, now that I tried to find a good shot to illustrate this extreme length- the best is this rear view of a Tauriel figurine, and it suggests there may be some hairstyle addressing this anyway...)

http://thefwoosh.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/tauriel-4.jpg


(This post was edited by arithmancer on Aug 19 2013, 12:17am)


kbdiggity
Rivendell

Aug 19 2013, 12:15am

Post #5 of 63 (832 views)
Shortcut
... [In reply to] Can't Post

We don't need to make a case for Tauriel.


Anyone who accepted Arwen's expanded role in the previous trilogy and still claims to love that trilogy, will eventually accept Tauriel's smaller role in this trilogy.


DwellerInDale
Rohan


Aug 19 2013, 1:06am

Post #6 of 63 (849 views)
Shortcut
And don't forget the most important part: [In reply to] Can't Post

...which is, of course, the story arc. Including a non-canon character should help to flesh out the overall story. For example, in Game of Thrones they needed to create a female character, Talisa, because in the book Robb Stark's whole romance takes place offstage, and thus has far less emotional impact when the Red Wedding comes around. We now know enough about Tauriel's story arc to understand the reasons why she was included and how her presence will affect the overall plot and set up events in LOTR. Add to this the fact that with no female characters whatsoever, The Hobbit would indeed eventually begin to feel somewhat "off" when presented on film, and you see how her character kills two or three birds with one stone. These are some of the reasons why I've been such a fan from day one, plus the casting of Evangeline Lilly in the role-- during LOST's first season years ago, I watched her climb trees in the forest and remarked to those present "She'd make a great wood elf in Tolkien." Then it actually happened!


It IS our fight!


.

Don't mess with my favorite female elf.




emre43
Lorien

Aug 19 2013, 7:05am

Post #7 of 63 (760 views)
Shortcut
Tolkien said himself that he wanted others to expand his universe. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
What I do see is people trying to legitimize her as something Tolkien would have approved of or something that is good for the story. IMHO though the only one who can write a character that Tolkien would have approved of is Tolkien himself....Personally I don't know if she is good or bad in what Jackson has done with her yet because I haven't seen her on the screen yet. What I have seen I'm not impressed with anyways... I will however say I do Not think she is good for the Hobbit which by all accounts is not what we are getting on film anyways. I just find it funny how no one as seen the character but yet people are blindly willing to make up excuses for her existence in the films and defend the character.

Honestly she doesn't remind me of any canon characters, and whatever they have in store for us with her I'm sure will not match the brilliance of what Tolkien wrote. But that is just my opinion. Unsure



Eleniel
Grey Havens


Aug 19 2013, 7:28am

Post #8 of 63 (748 views)
Shortcut
Funnily enough... [In reply to] Can't Post

I've just seen this quote in the write-up for Sibley's DoS Movie Guide (£11.24 version on The Book Depository)



Quote

In our adaptation of The Hobbit we have done something that Tolkien didn't succeed in doing in print and, hopefully, this will come fresh to people who will have never seen the full story playing out in chronological order.' PETER JACKSON



"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 Aug 19 2013, 7:29am)


Elthir
Gondor

Aug 19 2013, 12:02pm

Post #9 of 63 (704 views)
Shortcut
What Tolkien once wrote... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic to the level of romantic fairy-story (...) The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. Absurd. J. R. R. Tolkien, Letters




And even if one interprets that to mean 'invent characters wholesale', especially when adapting a specific story Tolkien wrote [drama], even that, of course, doesn't mean that any invented character, doing anything, would have been just fine with JRRT.

What Tolkien also wrote [Laws And Customs of The Eldar] was that while Elven-women were physically capable of fighting, and did so in 'dire straights' and 'desperate defence', it was still the Elven-men who bore arms at need. So injecting Tauriel is already on shakey ground to my mind -- in the context of Tolkien's theoretical approval here, as one needs to call her a 'possible exception' regarding her very role in the first place.

And later in life we can see Tolkien getting rather annoyed at people trying to expand his universe in print, at least, and even with the way some artists chose to depict his characters 'in paint' [his notable reaction to a 'pretty' artist's version of Legolas for example]. And Tolkien said, just after he sold the film rights:



Quote
'No film nor any 'version' in another medium could appear satisfactory to any devoted and attentive reader. On the other hand some of the greater pictorial and dramatic scenes could, with modern resources, be a moving experience. All possible precautions have been taken that the story should be presented without serious mutilation and without alteration or alterations.'

JRRT, Chronology, Hammond and Scull




I'm not sure what the 'precautions' were that Tolkien seems to have thought were taken, but anyway...


(This post was edited by Elthir on Aug 19 2013, 12:11pm)


Noria
Rohan

Aug 19 2013, 12:06pm

Post #10 of 63 (659 views)
Shortcut
Would Tolkien have approved of Tauriel? I think not. Does that matter? No, IMO. [In reply to] Can't Post

It seems to me that noting that Tolkien acknowledged that female Elves did fight on occasion is not the same as suggesting that he would have approved. Frankly, given that he seems to have been old fashioned even for his time, it seems unlikely.

But Tolkien is not making these movies and his active contribution is over. It doesn't matter to me whether he would have approved or not.

PJ and company inserted Tauriel because they thought her character would be good for the story. They may be right or they may be wrong. We won't know until December and even then, there won't be any agreement on the matter.


Semper Fi
Rohan


Aug 19 2013, 12:23pm

Post #11 of 63 (664 views)
Shortcut
I never understood "Tolkien wouldn't approve" argument against new characters [In reply to] Can't Post

Movie rights are sold. That's business. Whoever has the rights can adapt the property the way they want. There will always be changes. Adding a new character is hardly more unapproavable by the originator than changes to existing characters and stories.
I'd say the latter would ruffle his feathers more than someone he didn't invest in creating.

"RadagaStoner deserves no mercy!" Tauriel the Radagast Slayer, the Chief of Inglorious Elfguards



Semper Fi
Rohan


Aug 19 2013, 12:29pm

Post #12 of 63 (649 views)
Shortcut
Don't think exuses are any more blind than attacks [In reply to] Can't Post

Movie-to-book changes are inevitable. Some will hate new characters but accept changes to canon ones, some will accept both, some will hate both, some will like new but hate changes to the old. I don't think that any of it comes with blindness.

I see your point thought but I don't see how Tauriel, a new character, is worse than stoner Radagast interpretation of a canon character (thought the one that doesn't appear in this particular book). Just one exmaple of how changes to canon characters are made to equally polarizing response.

"RadagaStoner deserves no mercy!" Tauriel the Radagast Slayer, the Chief of Inglorious Elfguards



Semper Fi
Rohan


Aug 19 2013, 12:31pm

Post #13 of 63 (637 views)
Shortcut
That's good to hear [In reply to] Can't Post

I was hoping that arguments for defense would prevail.

"RadagaStoner deserves no mercy!" Tauriel the Radagast Slayer, the Chief of Inglorious Elfguards



Elthir
Gondor

Aug 19 2013, 12:46pm

Post #14 of 63 (640 views)
Shortcut
For my part... [In reply to] Can't Post

... it is in reaction to the suggestion that Tolkien 'would approve', especially with very general statements like he wanted others to expand his universe.


Êleniel Tindome
Bree


Aug 19 2013, 1:04pm

Post #15 of 63 (635 views)
Shortcut
I agree with sinister71... [In reply to] Can't Post

....its also absolutely far away from Tolkien in the overall context (Hobbit+LOTR). Eowyns character and her actions are not of any importance or surprising after we saw Badass Red Sonja in action.


Elthir
Gondor

Aug 19 2013, 1:50pm

Post #16 of 63 (626 views)
Shortcut
By the way... [In reply to] Can't Post

... my apologies if that's not what you meant. But it was only one line and seemed to try and suggest a blanket approval, but if that is just me over-simplifying your argument then, again, I apologize in advance.

Smile


Werde Spinner
Rohan


Aug 19 2013, 2:07pm

Post #17 of 63 (598 views)
Shortcut
So far [In reply to] Can't Post

I have no problem with Tauriel (someone has to be the captain of the guards, after all) and I'm willing to see how she plays out in the movie. You make some very good, well-reasoned points here - I'm always glad to see those!

That being said, as a girl with long hair myself I am very amused at Tauriel's hair. You do make an excellent point, though, that at *least* the Elves have it pulled back, unlike Aragorn - I never considered him having that sort of problem before! Laugh

"I had forgotten that. It is hard to be sure of anything among so many marvels. The world is all grown strange. Elf and Dwarf in company walk in our daily fields; and folk speak with the Lady of the Wood and yet live; and the Sword comes back to war that was broken in the long ages ere the fathers of our fathers rode into the Mark! How shall a man judge what to do in such times?"

"As he ever has judged. Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house."


arithmancer
Grey Havens


Aug 19 2013, 2:28pm

Post #18 of 63 (596 views)
Shortcut
The principle of the thing [In reply to] Can't Post

Tolkien either did, or did not, think it would be a good thing of one day others would come to play in his sandbox. The quote suggests that at some point, he did consider this a good idea.

Giving him retroactive veto power over what other artists then produce, is hardly fair to them. Which is why it does not matter to me all that much whether Tolkien would, or would not, approve specific additions/alterations to his stories.


Semper Fi
Rohan


Aug 19 2013, 2:52pm

Post #19 of 63 (606 views)
Shortcut
Her actions weren't surprising because the movie didn't keep her ID a secret [In reply to] Can't Post

when she picked up Merry. He even outlined the obvious with "my lady!" excalamtion just in case someone was too slow to get it. Arwen's kickass moment has nothing to do with undermining a surprise. Film-makers simply concluded that they couldn't pull off Dernhelm (what were they supposed to do, give her Batman voice?) and didn't make a mystery about the ID.

I really hope this doesn't turn into "Tauriel sucks because she takes Eowyn's thunder" discussion. Eowyn isn't a major character whose thunder needs to be guarded at all cost, including not giving other female characters a askicker moment.

"RadagaStoner deserves no mercy!" Tauriel the Radagast Slayer, the Chief of Inglorious Elfguards



Eowyn of Penns Woods
Valinor


Aug 19 2013, 5:41pm

Post #20 of 63 (555 views)
Shortcut
Weeeeell now. Ooookay, then. [In reply to] Can't Post

Them's fightin' words, but I'll keep the peace by hittin' the door, instead. ;)

*packs up opinion, and leaves*

**********************************

NABOUF
Not a TORns*b!
Certified Curmudgeon
Knitting Knerd
NARF: NWtS Chapter Member since June 17,2011


dormouse
Half-elven


Aug 19 2013, 6:05pm

Post #21 of 63 (548 views)
Shortcut
Absolutely... [In reply to] Can't Post

New characters are inserted into adapted stories for a reason. Usually it's to reveal something about one of the principal characters - something which the novelist has conveyed by description, or by telling the reader what the character is thinking. It's about telling the story in a different format, where what you see is all-important. So Morwen and her children in Two Towers were there to put a human face on the devastation of parts of Rohan and to show the news reaching the King. The boy Haleth was there to give Aragorn someone to voice his thoughts to at a critical moment; Gamling did the same for Theoden. There's always a reason.

Seems to me that Tauriel is there to flag up Thranduil's isolationism, Alfrid will probably be a foil to show up the Master's deviousness, but no one can know that, or know how effective those characters will be until they've seen the films. All three of them.

And as to whether Tolkien would have approved, like you, I doubt it. Some writers are happy to say 'do what you like with my story' and walk away from the adaptation - as Philip Pullman did with 'Northern Lights.' Others are more possessive towards their brain-children and I think Tolkien would have fallen into that camp, particularly as he grew older. I suspect he would have found any adaptation hard to take. On the other hand I hope he would have been moved by the depth of care and effort that have gone into the films over the years. I hope there are some things that might have touched him in the artwork, perhaps, or the music, or some of the individual performances. But that's just moonshine, really - I can't know that, none of us can.

And I think you're right that it doesn't matter in the long run, any more than it matters whether Jane Austen or Dickens like the way their books are interpreted today. What really matters is that the stories live and new generations get to enjoy them.


Elthir
Gondor

Aug 19 2013, 6:08pm

Post #22 of 63 (535 views)
Shortcut
approval [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
Tolkien either did, or did not, think it would be a good thing of one day others would come to play in his sandbox. The quote suggests that at some point, he did consider this a good idea.




But again, if so, that is only approval in a very general sense. We can see by Tolkien's reaction to the 'Zimmerman treatment' that when it came to film adaptations, he wasn't simply going to say [something like]: 'as it's your film based on my world, and I just approve of you expanding it, then all is good and golden: I approve'.



Quote
Giving him retroactive veto power over what other artists then produce, is hardly fair to them. Which is why it does not matter to me all that much whether Tolkien would, or would not, approve specific additions/alterations.




Well I don't know about veto power necessarily, which he would only have in certain scenarios, but JRRT has the right to his opinion in my opinion, when confronted with specific art based on or inspired by his writing; and I think that his negative comments about certain pieces of art help illustrate that he was not about simply approving all potential and specific art based upon his tales.

In other words, I don't think it is fair to stamp 'Tolkien approved' upon every particular piece of art that comes down the road, because [it can be argued that at one point in his life] JRRT liked the very general idea of his tales providing inspiration, while leaving scope for other artists.

Again, not that you or anyone necessarily said so specifically; but then what is the compelling point of raising this citation, after someone else raised the matter of Tolkien's 'approval' of something.



(This post was edited by Elthir on Aug 19 2013, 6:16pm)


arithmancer
Grey Havens


Aug 19 2013, 6:55pm

Post #23 of 63 (518 views)
Shortcut
Major/minor character [In reply to] Can't Post

In my opinion the point is not whether Eowyn is minor or major. The wrong idea is that Tauriel "steals her thunder".

I think this for two reasons. First, are courage, strength, and determination so rare in the female of our species that one could not possibly have more than one female character in a franchise fight in a battle? In the books, does the existence of Haleth in the Silmarillion detract from Eowyn's accomplishments in LotR? Are modern audiences from countries in whose militaries women see combat, less moved by this scene than the reading audience of the 1950's? I have yet to see the idea on these forums that the fighting we have seen in in AUJ is "stealing Gimli's thunder"...

The other point is that they are very different characters in very different circumstances. Tauriel is Captain of the Guard. Just that alone tells us her story will be completely different from Eowyn's. She is not a princess (so she will not have Thranduil and Legolas trying to protect her as Theoden and Eomer did Eowyn) and her competence as a warrior is not in doubt among her people (as Thranduil would obviously not assign to such a position a warrior he finds in any way less than superior). Her killing of Orcs by the dozen (if indeed we see such) will not be a novelty or surprise to anyone except, possibly, the Orcs and Thorin's Company, who will presumably catch on quickly once they see her and the Elves she commands in action.


Semper Fi
Rohan


Aug 19 2013, 8:11pm

Post #24 of 63 (502 views)
Shortcut
I agree completely [In reply to] Can't Post

which is why I find the 'so and so will steal so and so's thunder and therefore shouldn't be in the movie" argument to be the weakest of all arguments against having a character in the movie. It was brought up in regards to Arwen and it's back now with Tauriel.

IMO, having more female characters who fight is helpful to all of them because it removes the dreaded "Mary Sue" factor from equation, since Mary Sue's are usually so special nobody is like them. And since Galadriel is rumored to be in Dol Guldur batttle too, that's 4 characters in the movies that participate in a fight.

I just hope that Tauriel detractors are accepting the fact that she is deifnitely going to be the ultimate female fighter of all 6 movies, considering the number of action scenes she is, and quite posisbly will have more face time than other 3.

"RadagaStoner deserves no mercy!" Tauriel the Radagast Slayer, the Chief of Inglorious Elfguards



(This post was edited by Semper Fi on Aug 19 2013, 8:13pm)


Captain Salt
Tol Eressea


Aug 19 2013, 8:19pm

Post #25 of 63 (513 views)
Shortcut
On a Tauriel-related note... [In reply to] Can't Post

Lucy O'Connor on StarNow New Zealand has listed on her RV that she's a body double for "Tilda" in TH - could be the girl who Tauriel heals from on Orc-inflicted wound, IMO.

My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"
5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck
4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot
3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan
2. Use of not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, plus the inclusion of axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate
1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

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.