|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ziggy Stardust
Mithlond
Aug 21 2013, 1:28am
Post #1 of 95
(4962 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A case-simply a case
|
Can't Post
|
|
I feel have to say something. And I'm going to say it now, because next week I start some important classes, and will be focusing on those, so this is my only chance to say this.
In recent threads, there have been a lot of debate and argument over Tauriel. I have been a part of this. At this point, I am exhausted, and I feel I need to say something. I don't care for any agreements or disagreements. I am simply just trying to get people to understand why there are some not for this character, and where I am coming from. Again YOU DO NOT HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME. I just want people to understand, why I feel the way I do. I want to say something, because I've felt I've been a bit of a Puck on here (you read right, that's Puck, as in from A Midsummer's Night's Dream.) Bear with me, this may be long, but please read, and try to understand. Disagree or agree, I don't care, I just want understandment.
I love The Hobbit. I always have since I read it at 13 years old. Tolkien's work has gotten me into Norse Mythology, and gave me a love of Elves, Dwarves, and dragons. When I found out it was to be a film, I was excited. When I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, I loved it. Maybe not as much as The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, but I still loved it. There were some parts I wish could have been done differently/better, but overall, the parts changed, I was able to tolerate.
I thought the Dwarves looked all right. My only complaints was the axe handle in Bifur's head (which was silly), and I wish Thorin's beard was longer. I also wished Kili had yellow hair. Othwerwise, they all looked like Dwarves to me.
I was glad to see Radagast. Even though he was only mentioned in the novel he made an actual appearance in The Fellowship of the Ring. He was not in the film adaptation. Adding him in The Hobbit, made me feel that Jackson was making up for not having him in The Lord of the Rings. I thought his character was fine. Radagast seemed harried in The Fellowship of the Ring, so him being eccentric, harried and, for want of a better word, hyper, I thought made sense. The only complaint I had about him was the bird dung in his hair. I thought that was just gross. Otherwise, he was fine as a character.
Azog. I tolerated him enough, but I still think/wish, if they had to, they should have used Bolg, instead. Azog was dead before the beginning of the novel, and Bolg showed up at the Bo5A for revenge. It would have made more sense for Bolg to be the one to relentlessly chase Thorin & Co. I wasn't into Azog's design either. He looked like a videogame orc from Wow (which I've never played, but have seen screen caps of) or a character from D&D (which I don't care for, no offense to any D&Ders.) He looked cartoonish to me, and after seeing the orcs in The Lord of the Rings, I was hoping they would have made a better orc.
So I had some misgivings about The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, but I still enjoyed it. I am (and want to) look forward to The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. However, I'm nervous about some of the changes and character additions: Tauriel and Alfrid. (Some of you are probably rolling your eyes now. But read on.)
Tauriel to me sounds like a Mary-Sue. Let me explain why. Seven years ago, when I was in high school, to escape the doldrums, I sometimes read fan fictions. (One of my friends was a fanfic junkie, and often gave me ones to read.) I read several that included original characters, just like Tauriel. Some were male, some were female, but they all sucked. I never liked any of the OC, heck I didn't like any of the fanfictions. The addition of Tauriel reminds me of those fanfictions. To me, she is wishfulfiment for anyone who wants to live in Middle-Earth and kick butt. And no, I'm not just referring to females, there are some males who feel that way too. Back in early 2012, I happened across a Sherlock fanfic. Against my better judgement, I read it. It included an OC, whom Tauriel reminds me of. The fanfic was awful and so was the character. When I found out more about this Tauriel character, she reminded me of every Mary-Sue (and Gary Stu) I've ever read about. From her cliche lines, to the red hair (which is the prime color for MS/GS OCs) and the leather. This is why I don't care for Tauriel. This is why I have said she is a Mary-Sue. I've already read about characters like her before, and basically I see her as predictable and bourgeois. I'm also not into the intended romance between her and Legolas. That is also fanfiction material. (And I have read a couple of Legolas/OC fanfic back in the day.) Also, I feel that they are pushing her into the movie too much. This film isn't about Tauriel. It isn't her movie. It's about Bilbo, and is Bilbo and the Dwarves' movie. The only other elf who is also a part of this is Thranduil. Tauriel should not take any of their place. I'm afraid that will happen, and I will be very disappointed. And one of the things I like about Tolkien's work is that romance is not the goal. To have Legolas and Tauriel as a couple completely screws up the purpose of the film. (Which isn't about them anyway.) So that's why I don't like Tauriel. Take it or leave it.
Now as for Alfrid. We don't know much about him yet. But if Tauriel is any indication, I wouldn't be surprised if Alfrid is the mindless henchman, who does every single thing that the Master tells him, in hopes some of that greatness will rub off on him, and is also very stupid to make the Master look smarter. I've seen this character trope a dozen times. I call this, the Igor type. (To know what that means, watch the 1930 Frankenstein starring Boris Karloff, which, by the way, is nothing like the novel by Mary Shelley, which is way better.) So there you go. This is how I feel and why. I don't mean to downplay others opinions. I've accepted that there are some for Tauriel, and while I don't know how that can be, I know it is. Now for those who are for Tauriel, you need to accept that there are some, like me, who are against her. You might also be wondering how can that be, but know that it is.
I think I've said all I wanted to say. Peace out.
|
|
|
Ziggy Stardust
Mithlond
Aug 21 2013, 1:32am
Post #2 of 95
(3809 views)
Shortcut
|
There was a film adaptation of The Picture of Dorian Gray which included a new character not in the novel. She was Basil Hallward's niece (which he didn't have in the novel), and love interest for Dorian. For me, it did not work. It didn't follow the novel, which was not a romance, at all. And in my humble opinion, defeated the purpose of the story. So, I'm not just opposed to new characters in The Hobbit. I've seen this type of thing before, and it doesn't always work for me.
|
|
|
Semper Fi
Nargothrond
Aug 21 2013, 2:09am
Post #3 of 95
(3797 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Great rundown of what's wrong with Mary Sue characterisation
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I wrote A Case for Tauriel few threads down so I was interested to read your view. I really think you nailed why Mary Sue characters suck and what Sue-ish personal traits (red hair, leather, in love with Legolas, butt-kicker) are part of Tauriel's look and characterization.
However, I have followed The Hobbit casting woes since it began and IMO they dodged the Mary Sue bullet when they decided to cast Evie instead of then 17 years old or younger Saoirse Ronan. Teenage Chief of the King's Guard is an A Grade example of Mary Sue. Like, seriously, I can't even fathom why they wrote the role with Ronan in mind (and, chronologically, the character was conceived during The Lovely Bones shoot so she was 14 - 15 then yikes!).It's just a ridiculous idea to have a kid bark orders at grown men and women and make goo-goo eyes at Legolas (played by a 30something - creepy!).
Anyway, that didn't happen fortunately (Ronan said she turned down the offer because it was too small a role for spending a year long shoot abroad, or maybe she was scared away by outraged fans) and Tauriel is now a proper age for such a responsibility.
Also, Evie said that her romantic feelings (presumably for Legolas) are not a big plot point but they explain her motivations. So it won't be some star-crossed romance that overwhelms the movie.
Moreover, Mary Sues (and Gary Stu's) tend to have unexplained powers and skills, while Tauriel is a military woman. She isn't a blacksmith who unexplicably becomes a super sailor and captain or super knight who invents irrigation systems, leads armies and performs diplomatic duties without previous schooling (pretty much any character played by Orlando Bloom post-LOTR).
So I'd say that she may look like a Sue on paper, but there are also things about her that defuse the Sue bomb.
"RadagaStoner deserves no mercy!" Tauriel the Radagast Slayer, the Chief of Inglorious Elfguards
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Doriath
Aug 21 2013, 2:16am
Post #4 of 95
(3765 views)
Shortcut
|
I can't tell you how glad I was when Lilly was cast instead of Ronan. I'm sure Ronan would make for a great "young" elf, but certainly not for this Tauriel character, IMO. Lilly has the more mature look that I feel should come with the elves, especially one of superior rank.
THE SONG OF TUOR
Only the reeds were rustling, but a mist lay on the streams
Like a sea-roke drawn far inland, like a shred of salt sea-dreams.
'Twas in the Land of Willows that I heard th'unfathomed breath
Of the Horns of Ylmir calling - and shall hear them till my death.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Dor-Lomin
Aug 21 2013, 2:23am
Post #5 of 95
(3775 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agreed with most of what you had to say...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Like you, I thought Radagast was a bit OTT and silly, and I don't think he at all matches the character that Tolkien had in mind. I can't say this with utter certainty, but I think Tolkien would have loathed the Disney-esque portrayal of Radagast. I'll also add that I didn't really like the fact that he was the one who went into Dol Guldur and found the Necromancer (as we all know, it was Gandalf as far as Tolkien was concerned). So even though his role was expanded at the expense if Gandalf, his presence in the films is not a major point of contention for me, because aside from his foray into Dol Guldur, nothing else he did directly contradicts the source material.
On the other hand...
I feel that thus far, Azog has been THE worst of the creative liberties PJ has taken with Tolkien's work, and that includes both the LOTR films and AUJ. I agree with the point that it should have been Bolg. I should point out that I have nothing against Manu Bennett or his performance. I wasn't even much bothered by Azog's CGI. What bothers me about Azog is the fact that he is present at all. I wouldn't have minded if PJ had Thorin kill Azog at the Battle of Azanulbizar instead of Dain, but I feel that keeping Azog alive and turning him into a major antagonist is too much deviation from the source. Azog is the one thing in AUJ that makes me roll my eyes in annoyance. I just feel he should not be there, and I will never get over the fact that he is there, skulking around 150 years after he should be dead. When I saw that he had survived the first movie, I groaned. Talk about over-staying your welcome...
Tauriel, I cannot judge her yet. I am not PO'd about Jackson turning the male chief of the Thranduil's guard into a female. But she should not have a significant role, unless it is to bolster Thranduil's role.
I'm not bothered by the inclusion of Legolas, but hopefully he doesn't get more screen-time than his dad.
Alfrid, I really can't judge yet. But I want to say this - his role should be small, nothing more than someone for the Master of Lake-town to talk to. I've heard some say that they think he might turn out to be a Wormtongue type of character. If Alfrid has anywhere near the function of Wormtongue, then I think the writers will have made a huge (and extremely self-indulgent) mistake.
Anyway, even though I have my concerns, and TBH have lost a bit of faith in PJ's good sense (especially after seeing the recent trailer), I am still looking forward to DoS. AUJ was not a total wash, I'd give it a 7 out of 10. But it could have been an 8 or 9 (maybe even a 10) if PJ didn't try to overstuff it with extravagant fluff.
|
|
|
Nira
Menegroth
Aug 21 2013, 3:12am
Post #6 of 95
(3679 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree with everything in the above post ^//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"Why, to think of it, we're in the same tale still! It's going on. Don't the great tales never end?" -Samwise
|
|
|
Elessar
Doriath
Aug 21 2013, 3:38am
Post #7 of 95
(3715 views)
Shortcut
|
It's nice to read a post that is at least respectful to people who don't agree.
I like you would have liked to see Bolg as the main bad guy, the change to the battle/Dwarven history is an issue, bird poop on Radagast, belching, snot, and up close look at drinking were my main issues. As far as film 2 I can't say as I've not seen it yet. From what I've seen of Tauriel I don't think she will be an issue. Could she be? Sure, but just because you read some bad fanfic doesn't mean that will be the case with her. Though, I'd say you've made up your mind about her and Alfrid already. So to be honest it sounds like there is little room if any for you to go she wasn't all that bad. That would be the one thing I take away from your post but I appreciate you not knocking folks for not agreein with you.
|
|
|
Elessar
Doriath
Aug 21 2013, 3:40am
Post #8 of 95
(3711 views)
Shortcut
|
I'd easily give AUJ a 9/10. Outside of my issues above I loved every second of it. It felt like coming back to an old friend. Obviously ones mileage may vary. Just wanted to chime in with this after reading your last bit in that post.
|
|
|
DwellerInDale
Nargothrond
Aug 21 2013, 6:17am
Post #9 of 95
(3760 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Straw Men, Mary Sue, and the Once and Future...Captain Of The Elf Guards
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As others may have noticed, I've been a fan of Tauriel's inclusion from the first, so I've had to sit through all the flak surrounding her character. I don't mind it if people love or hate her character; everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and it would be difficult to change someone's views on the subject. What does bother me, however, is the amount of criticism heaped on Tauriel based on misinformation. Criticism based on a set of untrue assumptions is called the "straw man" fallacy in logic. You set up your perfect straw man by interpreting information in a biased way, then proceed to tear down that straw man. That is exactly what has happened with Tauriel, over and over. Thus I wanted to respond to the points raised in the OP that I find to be distortions or just plain untrue.
The first is this "Mary Sue" thing that has cropped up several times. People often used this term before the DOS trailer was released on 12 June. We hadn't really seen much of Tauriel yet, so it was based on nothing but a few sound bites in some interviews and internet articles. What exactly is a Mary Sue? One member directed us to an internet source listing all the properties of a "Mary Sue" , where I found this quote:
It should be noted that there IS such a thing as a "good" Mary Sue, and that there are a few exceptions where characters can have a lot of the symptoms above and NOT be a Mary Sue (like the elves in Lord of the Rings, for instance)
-- from www.fanpop.com
(Quote from 5 June post).
After the trailer was released, several people who had used this term previously posted comments to the effect that they found Tauriel to be much more likeable than they had imagined, and "not Sue-ish at all." The reasons for the quote above are pretty clear. Elves are fair, wise, immortal beings in Tolkien's world. We don't want them to be human women. We don't want to see Arwen eating crackers in bed, or Galadriel fiddling with her eyeshadow, or Tauriel with her hair in curlers.
Now that Tauriel's story arc is becoming clearer, showing that she has a small, but pivotal and well thought-out role in DOS (in the theme of involvement vs non-involvement), anyone who persists with this "Mary Sue" criticism is just being obstinate, in my opinion.
The second bit of misinformation is in these endless Tauriel romance rumors. Simply put: they are untrue. First it was Tauriel and Legolas. Then it was Tauriel and Kili. Then it was Tauriel and Thranduil. Next it will be Tauriel and Bard. These rumors spring from exaggerations and misinterpretations of quotes, April Fool's Day jokes, and peoples' imaginations. A young woman posted a 7 minute video on YouTube castigating Peter Jackson for putting this Tauriel-Kili romance into The Hobbit. The fact that there is no Tauriel-Kili romance, as far as we know, didn't seem to matter. A good example is the
"love story" quote in the DOS Empire article that was released recently.This was an obvious sound bite made in order to generate interest, and readers should not interpret this "love story" in a literal way (e.g. romance, "arranged marriages" and such). From reading the whole article, it suggests that Tauriel simply has some star-crossed feelings for Legolas, and knows that it's impossible (him being a prince and a higher elf), but that she does try to impress him, which will motivate some of her actions- like going after the orcs that invade Mirkwood. This would also be a mirror image of Kili's star-crossed attraction to her-- he knows that it would be impossible as well. Thus I think the films won't really have any "romance" as such; only hints of feelings that drive the characters' actions. The whole Kili thing was based on one quote from Aiden Turner that said nothing will happen between them, because Kili knows that a dwarf man and an elf woman are an impossible pair (his quote was "...she's like twenty feet tall and he's only two!"). So the Kili thing will in all probability only be a played as a comedy moment, perhaps during the Mirkwood capture / imprisonment, although (as I've posted before) she may be present during Kili's final scene.
Finally, readers should not misinterpret the images on the covers of the recent tie-in books. Legolas and Tauriel have been prominently featured because they will sell books. If you look on Jude Fisher's web page, you will see a comment to the effect that the authors of those books themselves have no say or control over the cover art-- they aren't even allowed to have images emailed to them. Thus the cover designs may have little to do with the prominence or lack thereof of characters in the movie, and they are not at all connected to Peter Jackson or the other members of the writing team. Rest assured that Thranduil will be a major character, even if he wasn't shown on the covers of the tie-in books.
Off the soapbox. Can't help defending my favorite female elf from wrong information...it IS our fight!
.
Don't mess with my favorite female elf.
|
|
|
Legomir
Ossiriand
Aug 21 2013, 7:13am
Post #10 of 95
(3619 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't have any feeling one way or the other about Tauriel, simply because I do not know enough about her and also because I don't particularly give thought to changes from books (even really good books).
But I will say that there is a possibility that many of the things people are thinking about the character could be the result of marketing. Sometimes, marketing is not a big indicator of what the movie or the character will be like. I could see Warner Brothers wanting to throw as much of Tauriel as possible into the marketing simply because they would consider her a big draw for female audiences or Lost fans or something like that.
I think it's sort of like Tony Stark appearing at the beginning of the trailer for The Incredible Hulk, obviously because everybody liked Iron Man, making the movie almost seem like it would be Iron Man 2 with him hunting the Hulk instead of the finished film where he appears for less than a minute at the very end.
Also, the same argument could be said for the movie seeming like it will be non-stop wall-to-wall CGI infested action scenes. For all we know, there could only be 20 minutes of action scenes in the whole 3-hour movie, but they are showing bits of all twenty of those minutes in the trailers to attract younger males.
|
|
|
Eleniel
Dor-Lomin
Aug 21 2013, 7:23am
Post #11 of 95
(3641 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Some, maybe, but not necessarily all... ;-)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Evie herself is playing the teasing game...in her recent Twitter conversation she said could neither confirm nor DENY a romance between Tauriel and Legolas...
The second bit of misinformation is in these endless Tauriel romance rumors. Simply put: they are untrue. First it was Tauriel and Legolas.
Plus the actress herself is not necessarily doing her character any favours with the soundbites she has been giving in interviews, e.g., the kick-ass, ruthless killing machine...
"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort
|
|
|
dormouse
Gondolin
Aug 21 2013, 7:24am
Post #12 of 95
(3635 views)
Shortcut
|
...and if that's your view, that's your view - good luck to you.
Just one thing. The 'intended romance'. So far as anyone knows, there is no intended romance - no romance at all - between Tauriel and Legolas. It's not a fact or a stated intention on the part of the filmmakers - on the contrary, Peter Jackson has specifically denied it and he knows a whole lot more of what will be in the film than any of us. So, on that point I'd say just wait and see. You may be prejudging him for something he hasn't introduced and has never intended to introduce. You may be closing your mind to the film unnecessarily as far as that's concerned.
Just saying.
|
|
|
tolktolk
Menegroth
Aug 21 2013, 10:07am
Post #13 of 95
(3599 views)
Shortcut
|
Is this actress considered a big star in America? I doubt if many people in Britain would have a clue who she was. She is certainly much less well known than the actual stars of the film, like Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman,Jimmy Nesbitt and Benedict Cumberbatch.
I've nothing against her, but to me at least, this focusing on her and whatever plot they have invented for he is just yet more extraneous baggage detracting from the central story and promising to make the next films even more bloated than the first.
|
|
|
jtarkey
Nargothrond
Aug 21 2013, 10:34am
Post #14 of 95
(3579 views)
Shortcut
|
You're assuming that Tauriel has a well thought out, and pivotal role in DOS. How do you know?
I want to add, I'm totally neutral on Tauriel. I like Evangeline Lilly a lot. But frankly, you're accusing people of judging Tauriel preemptively when you're doing the exact same thing.
I'm not trying to be mean or anything here, but how do you already know she's you're favorite female elf?
"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"
|
|
|
jtarkey
Nargothrond
Aug 21 2013, 10:40am
Post #15 of 95
(3561 views)
Shortcut
|
|
She is well known for starring in LOST...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
She's not a "star" per say, but she certainly has legitimate and respectful acting chops behind her.
"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"
|
|
|
Semper Fi
Nargothrond
Aug 21 2013, 11:02am
Post #16 of 95
(3560 views)
Shortcut
|
Some actors have more exposure but none of them draws audience on their name alone. Now that you mentioned Cumberbatch, it looks like Paramount really thought he was banakable due to Shrelock exposure and featured him heavily in Star Trek trailers. The movie made less than the first in its opening weekend and overall, despite 3D price hike and inflation, and is considered a boxoffice disappointment. Part of the blame is heaped on the marketing focus on actor who isn't a star.
The Hobbit is a brand name whose actors don't need to be stars. So that shouldn't be taken against any of them since The Hobbit as a brand draws audience, not a particular actor. It isn't what's called a star vehicle where particular actor is the main reason to see the movie. As the matter of fact, LOTR was the same, super hero movies are the same (though super hero movies actually have a so-called star-making track record in that some actors became real stars with drawing power - Downey, Hemsworth, Bale).
"RadagaStoner deserves no mercy!" Tauriel the Radagast Slayer, the Chief of Inglorious Elfguards
|
|
|
Arannir
Doriath
Aug 21 2013, 11:37am
Post #17 of 95
(3541 views)
Shortcut
|
Freeman and Crumberbatch would not be known to many if it wasn't for the Sherlock-hype, to be honest.
If this was 2006, Lilly would have had a similar form of "star-appeal" - although I know that BC has a certain form of extreme hype around him at the moment.
And outside of the Anglo-American world (with big markets like France, Germany, not to mention the Asian and Latin-American countries), all of those you list are in the same category with Lilly - actors who are known to those who follow a specific show or are fans of a specific movie they have been in, but not known to the general public and almost zero media attention - which brings in the millions ;)
“A dragon is no idle fancy. Whatever may be his origins, in fact or invention, the dragon in legend is a potent creation of men’s imagination, richer in significance than his barrow is in gold.” J.R.R. Tolkien
Words of wisdom that should be remembered - both by critics, purists and anyone in between.
(This post was edited by Arannir on Aug 21 2013, 11:41am)
|
|
|
DwellerInDale
Nargothrond
Aug 21 2013, 11:49am
Post #18 of 95
(3588 views)
Shortcut
|
I did not go into detail on Tauriel's story arc in the previous post, so since you've raised the question here, I should present my current understanding.
Tauriel is the captain of the Woodland Guard. As such her character does occur in The Hobbit, albeit in a very minor role and (based on a single usage of a masculine pronoun, I believe), as a male. Her role has been expanded for the films, for several reasons. First, as Philippa Boyens has explained, a visual interpretation of The Hobbit with no female characters whatsoever would eventually feel too strange, like something out of Boys' Own Stories. It wouldn't mesh well with the 3 LOTR films as a prequel. And in the book the elves are often nameless, faceless characters, which again would feel odd if they literally translated book to film. Thus the creation (or modification) of one elf character, the captain of the guards, into a female character seems like an obvious way to kill two birds with one stone.
There is enough information now to see where they are going with Tauriel's story arc. We will meet her in Mirkwood, where she will rescue Fili and Kili from the spiders, and promptly take them and other Dwarves prisoner, helped by Legolas and the members of her Woodland Guard. They march the Dwarves off to the dungeons. She wonders about her king Thranduil's motivation for non-involvement in Thorin's quest and imprisoning the Dwarves. And one day she finds the cells empty, and reports this straight to Thranduil, who sends her elf guard out after the escaped Dwarves. Just as they overtake the Dwarves in their barrels, however, they are attacked by orcs. In the ensuing battle with the orcs, members of her elf guard are slain. This has quite an effect on her. The Dwarves escape with Bard's help.
Back in Mirkwood, Tauriel helps interrogate an orc that she took prisoner. They learn of the orcs' vendetta against Thorin's group. Thranduil again decides to do nothing about it. It is the nature of evil, he says. But Tauriel, as a younger, "less wise, more dangerous" elf, feels strongly that they should get involved. When Legolas says, following his father, "It is not our fight", she responds "It IS our fight". Thus she will set the example and be the catalyst for Legolas (and Thranduil) eventually changing their minds and having the elves become involved in the BOFA.
I have further clues and ideas about what happens to Tauriel in the end, but I want to save them for now. She will be in Dale, for example, and will ride in on the moose (sorry, Irish Elk) with Legolas, where she will meet Gandalf and Bilbo. She will be involved in the fight against orcs in Laketown, and will help revive a human girl. I'm at this point not sure whether she will go help out at Dol Guldur; that is one possibility suggested by Philippa Boyens' comments. Philippa dropped the hint that Tauriel's story arc will have things in common with a story line from LOTR concerning an elf, and that hardcore fans would recognize it. This could refer to the prophecy of the Witch King's doom, for example. Or, she may watch Legolas leave the Woodland Realm and go off by herself, as in the Nimrodel story line. We don't know enough yet to decide which story line PB was referring to.
All in all, my point was this: given the above, Tauriel is no "Mary Sue" inserted into the story for no real reason. Her presence will truly add some necessary embellishment to the plot, and will influence events in LOTR.
Don't mess with my favorite female elf.
(This post was edited by DwellerInDale on Aug 21 2013, 11:57am)
|
|
|
Elthir
Hithlum
Aug 21 2013, 12:00pm
Post #19 of 95
(3530 views)
Shortcut
|
The whole Kili thing was based on one quote from Aiden Turner that said nothing will happen between them, because Kili knows that a dwarf man and an elf woman are an impossible pair (his quote was "...she's like twenty feet tall and he's only two!").
Yet Turner's joking last comment is part of the very point in my opinion, as his reason for something he 'guesses' will not happen isn't really a reason at all. So who knows what Turner really means here, or what his tongue-in-cheek ending is really meant to say about 'nothing can ever happen', if anything [after all it's only a height difference, and obviously not as drastic as 20 feet to 2 too].
It may be that the entire last 'part' is just a joke [starting with: 'I guess he knows nothing...'], based on the final statement.
Turner does, nonetheless, say that Kili is pursuing Tauriel.
'Kili's part has been expanded from the novel; as well as chasing treasure, he's also pursuing female elf Tauriel. But is he setting his sights too high? 'I guess he knows nothing can ever happen,' he explains. 'She's about 20ft tall and he's only two!'
Aidan Turner
That doesn't mean there is necessarily a 'romance', no. But to my mind pursuing someone at least suggests more than simply having feelings for someone, while knowing that nothing can ever happen at the same time.
|
|
|
Elessar
Doriath
Aug 21 2013, 12:17pm
Post #20 of 95
(3519 views)
Shortcut
|
Reading that and thinking how it could play out on screen does make for some very cool mental images. 
|
|
|
Semper Fi
Nargothrond
Aug 21 2013, 12:47pm
Post #21 of 95
(3488 views)
Shortcut
|
Liking a character does not necessary translate into following actor's movies where he plays other characters. Stars have ability to transcend that and make masses care to see their movies no matter who they play (though star power is much more contextual than hype makes it out to be) . Which is why stars are very few "chosen ones". Take Viggo Mortensen's case. Disney invested about 120M in Hidalgo where Viggo was basically playing cowboy version of Aragorn. Timing couldn't have been better (from their POV) - the movie came out a week or two after ROTK's clean sweep at the Oscars. They even had a tagline in the trailer "The King has returned". It was a complete bomb. To illustrate how big a bomb and how few people cared to see it, I'm giving you boxoffice numbers for ROTK and Hidalgo:
ROTK - North American total 378M
Hidalgo - Noth Ameircan total 67M (or 311M down from ROTK)
ROTK - international total 742M
Hidalgo - Internaitonal total 40M (or 702M down from ROTK)
In short, not even basic Aragorn fans cared for his first big post-LOTR movie.
So it's unfair to trump the "is Evie a star? never heard of her." card since the role doesn't require a star power and the movie itself doesn't require it for any role because the title card is the main draw.
"RadagaStoner deserves no mercy!" Tauriel the Radagast Slayer, the Chief of Inglorious Elfguards
(This post was edited by Semper Fi on Aug 21 2013, 12:49pm)
|
|
|
Semper Fi
Nargothrond
Aug 21 2013, 12:57pm
Post #22 of 95
(3494 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Would you be so kind to share your speculatins in a PM?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'd very much like to know what you think for I have some ideas as well. But in order to avoid speculation = spoiler contorversy PM would be better.
That said, from everything you mentiond in the post, Tauriel definitely doesn't sound like a Mary Sue because she has a place in the story. Mary Sue would be someone who is shoe-horned and doesn't need to be there for another character can do whatever she does. Recent example would be Lois Lane in Man of Steel. As a reporter, she had no business in many places throughout the movie, most glaringly obivous one being her unexplicable ride to Zod's mothership. That was such eye-roller. I don't detect such problem with the King's Guard.
"RadagaStoner deserves no mercy!" Tauriel the Radagast Slayer, the Chief of Inglorious Elfguards
|
|
|
tolktolk
Menegroth
Aug 21 2013, 1:13pm
Post #23 of 95
(3461 views)
Shortcut
|
I saw someone say that having her on the cover would sell books and I was genuinely wondering if she was a big star in America, as otherwise it seems to be a very odd marketing strategy to put so much emphasis (at this stage anyway) on an entirely new and invented character rather than established ones who are already part of the brand, and to whom the viewers already have an attachment.
I would also argue with Arannir that the huge international success of Sherlock is due to superior quality rather than hype, but that's a different subject!
|
|
|
Arannir
Doriath
Aug 21 2013, 1:29pm
Post #24 of 95
(3461 views)
Shortcut
|
It is both I guess, just as it was with LOST. But sorry, some of the fan-sites / groups / etc surrounding Mr Crumberbatch in particular is clearly fan-hype to me (and that is nothing bad, as long as it does not get fanatical). The point is that those actors were - over the last years - all more or less on the same level of fan and media attention - with Freeman and Crumberbatch breaking out and becoming "bigger names". Lilly had quite some attention during the early years of LOST... but in the UK probably just as much as in America, I'd imagine. Looking at comments such as "it's Kate from LOST", it is quite clear that people who watched that will remember her. But she will clearly have no real selling power for the movie as an actress (neither will BC).
I guess they have her on the cover because they think Tauriel might be a (younger)-fans-favourite. It is not like by putting her on the covers of the visual companion and the activity book, she will influence many adult buyers.
In general, I feel they want to emphasize the Elves. Partly because they have with Legolas an old fans-favourite, with Thranduil a character that seems to be one of the most interesting characters of all six movies, and with Tauriel their own project with the hope of increasing the appeal of the movie overall. Plus it shows that the second movie will have a lot of new stuff and not be as simialr to any of the previous movies, while still having some nostalgia going.
@ semper Fi: I agree that the "selling power" of people like BC is highly exaggerated. Though it does not really make sense and is not completely fair to compare Hidalgo and RotK numbers, I get your point. I mean, of course some people watched that movie because of "Aragorn". But there are very, very few actors who have a large enough crowd following them to really make a difference at the BO.
From "Lord of the Rings" almost nobody has that kind of appeal (for a small production or theater, yes... but not for a blockbuster with estimated BO numbers of several 100 million dollars).
“A dragon is no idle fancy. Whatever may be his origins, in fact or invention, the dragon in legend is a potent creation of men’s imagination, richer in significance than his barrow is in gold.” J.R.R. Tolkien
Words of wisdom that should be remembered - both by critics, purists and anyone in between.
(This post was edited by Arannir on Aug 21 2013, 1:39pm)
|
|
|
burgahobbit
Nargothrond
Aug 21 2013, 1:46pm
Post #25 of 95
(3449 views)
Shortcut
|
I've got some of my own ideas for what other important roles Tauriel will play in TABA, but they are highly speculative at this point and could be way off the mark.
"I don't mean to be blunt but I felt I had to speak my mind, I'm sorry." - Bilbo Baggins.
"Apology accepted." - Balin.
|
|
|
|
|
1
