|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Feb 13 2014, 3:45pm
Post #76 of 113
(1216 views)
Shortcut
|
one-sided, two-sided, i don't care. It's still a dumb sub-plot between a made-up character and a barely there character shoe-horened into a story that doesn't need it to fill out three films that it now seems would have been better as two.
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Feb 13 2014, 4:05pm
Post #77 of 113
(1230 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I guess Fili just wasn't good looking enough...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Making the Hobbit into 3 movies would have been a wonderful chance to expand canon characters. Characters that are in Tolkien's books. But especially with the additon of Tauriel they take time away from the book characters and take away some of the best scenes in the book (introduction to Beorn, Feast of Starlight, getting lost in Mirkwood with Bombur having to be carried) All those things I would have loved to see. Instead we get a discussion on who Tauriel has a crush on and an embarrassing, cringeworthy healing scene. I would have much prefered to see more of the dwarves, especially Fili, who is the heir to the throne after Thorin, but is reduced to being a sidekick who gets to scream "Kili" every so often. Inventing a superfluous character with an unneccessary lovestory taking screentime away from canon characters and discard some of the nicest scenes in the book just doesn't make sense to me. Agreed.
|
|
|
Elanor of Rohan
Lorien
Feb 13 2014, 4:13pm
Post #78 of 113
(1220 views)
Shortcut
|
many fans appreciate him as well and if you look on the net, there are as many blogs and videos and fanart dedicated to him as you can find dedicated to Kili.
As I have already said we still have to see the DOS EE and TABA of course to judge his story-arc.
|
|
|
book Gandalf
Rohan
Feb 13 2014, 4:29pm
Post #79 of 113
(1212 views)
Shortcut
|
and i would predict mostly by adolescent girls, which is who fili and kili are for!
they dont work as dwarves, or even characters, fili as king of the dwarves? no way. they are eye candy thats it.
i wish we could go back and change this ridiculous subplot, change the dwarves, change azog, then we might get a half decent film that doesnt suck in th emost cheesiest ways possible.
ive seen DOS twice, and i really have no desire to see it again, im kidding my sellf really that TABA will make up for it, AUJ seems like amasterpiece now, but even when i watch that on bluray its pretty boring.
luckily i havnt watched lotr much past two years so at least i can watch that.
bring on some new adaptions i say
This is a serious journey, not a hobbit walking-party.
(This post was edited by book Gandalf on Feb 13 2014, 4:31pm)
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Feb 13 2014, 4:30pm
Post #80 of 113
(1205 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree, i would love to see more Fili.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think he's a much better, truer dwarf than Kili, and that Dean O'Gorman is a more interesting actor. But whether we like it or not, his character has been sidelined so far. The filmmakers obviously preferred Kili. I don't like it, but they did.
I think it would have been much better to play up the brothers' relationship (a good opportunity for some character-based comedy), and their relationship to Thorin, with a little extra attention given to Fili, since he is the heir, than some dumb romance (or whatever you want to call it) sub-plot with Kili. At least that has some relevance to the story Tolkien actually wrote.
|
|
|
wonderinglinguist
Lorien
Feb 13 2014, 4:53pm
Post #81 of 113
(1198 views)
Shortcut
|
She doesn't follow orders and she acts on emotions...why is she "captain", again?
Oh but she does have flaws. She doesn't follow orders. Bolg would have been defeated had both Legolas and Tauriel confronted him.
And assuming what's in store for Bolg will have terrible consequences for Thorin, Bolg's defeat in DOS could have averted much.
As for the guard and prisoner relationship, that conversation was right after Thranduil put her down. She was clearly devastated. (emphasis is mine)
keep smiling 
(This post was edited by wonderinglinguist on Feb 13 2014, 4:55pm)
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Feb 13 2014, 5:02pm
Post #82 of 113
(1198 views)
Shortcut
|
First, as many people have said, the Kili plot line in DoS really isn't a "love story", though others have just assumed it is. He seems to have something of a crush on her, but all we really saw in the film was Kili rambling in a delirium, talking about Tauriel in the third person.
...but it was still a waste of valuable screen-time that could have been spent developing characters who are integral to the story, like Beorn or Thranduil. Tauriel and Legolas should have been relegated to cameos, not made into major players.
Also they needed Kili's character to be developed as soon as was possible, and in a way that reveals personal details (such as his promise to his mother) because of events that will happen in TABA.
But couldn't they have instead developed Kili by highlighting the relationship between himself and his brother Fili (and to a lesser extent uncle Thorin)? After all, all 3 of them will share in the same fate in TaBA. Why do they have to have the spotlight on Kili and not Fili, the heir to the kingship of Erebor (at least in film-universe)?
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Feb 13 2014, 5:05pm
Post #83 of 113
(1185 views)
Shortcut
|
This screen-time could have been spent developing Beorn, Thranduil, or the relationship between Fili, Kili, and Thorin. Or we could have gotten Bilbo wandering the halls of the Woodland Realm (You know, Bilbo? The Hobbit?)
There is no excuse for Beorn being relegated to a 5 minute cameo in a 3-part adaptation of The Hobbit.
(This post was edited by Salmacis81 on Feb 13 2014, 5:06pm)
|
|
|
Elanor of Rohan
Lorien
Feb 13 2014, 5:08pm
Post #84 of 113
(1198 views)
Shortcut
|
are not characters built up for teenagers only. Of course the authors wanted to render them interesting, and since they are the youngest ones and Thorin's nephews (a good-looking actor) they had to be good-looking as well. And that's what the actors usually reply to this kind of comment (unassumingly they also say they are less ugly than the others, not more handsome)
(This post was edited by Elanor of Rohan on Feb 13 2014, 5:19pm)
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Feb 13 2014, 6:33pm
Post #85 of 113
(1176 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Considering the short shrift given to characters that we know are supposed to play major roles in the last third of the story...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I've seen so many posts here and elsewhere about what a travesty it was that so much time was wasted on this made up character.
...don't you think this is a somewhat legitimate gripe?
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Feb 13 2014, 6:40pm
Post #86 of 113
(1174 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't think characters that we know are supposed to play major roles in the last third of the story have gotten "short shrift" so no I do not think that it is a legitimate gripe. One of the nice things about having three films is that even with the additional storylines and characters, virtually all of the characters and storylines from the book are still present or even expanded upon (and that will be even more true with the EE).
'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
|
|
|
book Gandalf
Rohan
Feb 13 2014, 7:14pm
Post #87 of 113
(1155 views)
Shortcut
|
its not just characters , its the space to tell a story, mirkwood? we have no real sense of the size of the place, maybe if we didnt have tauriel we could get that whole chapter back in.
This is a serious journey, not a hobbit walking-party.
|
|
|
Eowyn of Penns Woods
Valinor
Feb 13 2014, 7:15pm
Post #88 of 113
(1149 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'd say Fili's *better*-looking than Kili, but my opinion usually is at odds with that of Ms. Boyens ;) .//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
**********************************
NABOUF
Not a TORns*b!
Certified Curmudgeon
Knitting Knerd
NARF: NWtS Chapter Member since June 17,2011
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Feb 13 2014, 7:27pm
Post #89 of 113
(1157 views)
Shortcut
|
Even though I was never a supporter of the 3-film split, the additions thus far have only further cemented my position. Almost none of the material taken from the appendices lines up with Tolkien's versions of those events, and the fact that more time was dedicated to the wacky adventures of Tauriel and Legolas than to Thranduil, Beorn, or the Master of Lake-town was quite annoying to me (Bard was about the only non-Dwarf book character I think they did a good job of expanding upon).
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Feb 13 2014, 8:23pm
Post #90 of 113
(1139 views)
Shortcut
|
I was so disappointed about the canon characters being given such meagre roles in favour of the all-action ninja 'elves'. Had this not happened, I could quite easily live with Tauriel – though not with the CGI Legolas, whose character was completely destroyed in this film.
Even though I was never a supporter of the 3-film split, the additions thus far have only further cemented my position. Almost none of the material taken from the appendices lines up with Tolkien's versions of those events, and the fact that more time was dedicated to the wacky adventures of Tauriel and Legolas than to Thranduil, Beorn, or the Master of Lake-town was quite annoying to me (Bard was about the only non-Dwarf book character I think they did a good job of expanding upon).
|
|
|
imin
Valinor
Feb 13 2014, 8:25pm
Post #91 of 113
(1138 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Could have been a good character
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and to be honest by the standards in DOS was actually pretty good. I think the character herself was ok it was just most of the scenes she was in were badly written.
Do i think she was needed - no. Does she add to the movie - i think so, but in some scenes i think she takes things away, so balances out.
Could have been better but it could have been worse like most of the movie so overall not too fussed with her.
All posts are to be taken as my opinion.
|
|
|
MyPrecioussss
Bree
Feb 13 2014, 9:45pm
Post #92 of 113
(1128 views)
Shortcut
|
Pitch-perfect example of male privilege, right here. You're a man, and you're so used to anything and everything (especially in stereotypically "male" genres like fantasy) being 100% tailored to you and your interests that you literally can't see why there's a problem with the lack of female characters in Tolkien's works. Does it even occur to you that 50% (or more) of the world's population is female? And that said women might be interested in Tolkien's works, yet simultaneously want some female characters they can identify with and root for?
I mean...I guess I'm just trying to wrap my head around how anyone could look at a piece of entertainment that excludes literally half the world's population, and shrug and say, "Welp, that's just the way it is." Just because it doesn't affect you personally doesn't mean it isn't something incredibly harmful that's in dire need of changing.
if you want interesting well written female characters, dont read tolkien or see tolkien films.
tolkien is all about wizards, hobbits,warriors, dragons,. monsters and goblins, dont expect three dimensional modern women. if you want that go see the thousands other pieces of literature and film that deals with these areas.
this is my problem with tauriel. she is written in by a modern writer working for a studio that wants to change the story.
im not saying that there shouldnt interesting female characters, im just saying ther isnt any in this story, and thats just how it is. take it or leave it, i dont see why it had to be changed.
if i go to see The Vagina Monlogues i dont expect it to have a token mans story about his sausage.
i promise to myself i will never mention tauriel or discuss her again. im over it.
|
|
|
marillaraina
Rohan
Feb 13 2014, 10:37pm
Post #93 of 113
(1117 views)
Shortcut
|
I've seen so many posts here and elsewhere about what a travesty it was that so much time was wasted on this made up character. ...don't you think this is a somewhat legitimate gripe?
No. Because you are assuming any time devoted to this storyline would have instead been devoted to other characters if it wasn't there.
But in point of fact, they could cut out all of Kili and Tauriel's storyline and not have added ANYTHING for any of these other characters. If they'd wanted to, they would have. Tauriel and Kili's storyline is not taking anything away from anyone else, it's just adding something in.
|
|
|
book Gandalf
Rohan
Feb 13 2014, 10:55pm
Post #94 of 113
(1112 views)
Shortcut
|
wooah horsey, im not saying that it isnt wrong to have no females in the hobbit, im just saying that if you want to read something that does have girls init, the hobbit probably isnt your thing, as it doesnt.
but anyway equality doesnt mean you have a 50 /50 gender split in every piece of literature, equality is diversity and a mixture of all types of things for everyone.
im all for stories representing gender equally , but im not all for going back and changing old stories and adding in the odd girl just to balance things up, this is far more dangerous.
and im not against tauriel as a female presence added, i just hate it because its so badly done.
to jump on my comment and cry male privilege and basiclly call me a bigot, is out of order completely misunderstood, and tottaly missing my point.
what iwant to know is which of the dwarves are gay?
This is a serious journey, not a hobbit walking-party.
(This post was edited by book Gandalf on Feb 13 2014, 11:03pm)
|
|
|
wonderinglinguist
Lorien
Feb 14 2014, 12:27am
Post #95 of 113
(1120 views)
Shortcut
|
There's no need to jump to such conclusions and rudeness. Besides, there are a lot of females who would be perfectly happy (even prefer) if there was no Tauriel.
As a woman, I don't need a token female to appreciate a story and I think it's selling women short to say we feel we must have one in every single thing or else. I like to think we're better and more intelligent than that. If the story was written with no female characters...then the story was written with no female characters. That's just how it is, same if there was a story with no males. Not interested in such a story? Don't watch/read it. No need to grab the soapbox.
If there's anything to be upset about, it's all the films that include women only to have them be sex objects or love interests, no substance.
keep smiling
(This post was edited by wonderinglinguist on Feb 14 2014, 12:38am)
|
|
|
Silverlode
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Feb 14 2014, 2:39am
Post #96 of 113
(1100 views)
Shortcut
|
was a casualty of Real Life, specifically the change of actors in the role. Having lost much of his original introduction makes him seem less rounded as a character than might otherwise have been the case.
Here's to seeing more of him in TABA!
Silverlode
"Dark is the water of Kheled-zâram, and cold are the springs of Kibil-nâla, and fair were the many-pillared halls of Khazad-dűm in Elder Days before the fall of mighty kings beneath the stone."
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Feb 14 2014, 9:38am
Post #98 of 113
(1080 views)
Shortcut
|
As a woman, I agree with you. I would have been perfectly happy if Tauriel had been omitted from the DoS film. In fact, I feel it would have felt more authentic (to Tokien's world) without her. (Nothing particularly against the actress, you understand.)
there are a lot of females who would be perfectly happy (even prefer) if there was no Tauriel.
As a woman, I don't need a token female to appreciate a story and I think it's selling women short to say we feel we must have one in every single thing or else. I like to think we're better and more intelligent than that. If the story was written with no female characters...then the story was written with no female characters. That's just how it is, same if there was a story with no males. Not interested in such a story? Don't watch/read it. No need to grab the soapbox.
If there's anything to be upset about, it's all the films that include women only to have them be sex objects or love interests, no substance.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Feb 14 2014, 1:25pm
Post #99 of 113
(1073 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No, I don't assume that to be the case...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...and if it came off that way, it was not my intent.
My main gripe is the fact that Tauriel has thus far been treated as a more central character than either Beorn or Thranduil. And it doesn't help that I loathe the specific plotline they came up with for Tauriel.
At the end of the day, my main problem with the story presented in this trilogy is that it contains too much Jackson, Boyens, and Walsh, and not enough Tolkien. I wanted to see the book (along with the supplemental material) brought to life, and that has not happened for me. Jackson's main priority seems to be on making sure this trilogy has as many connections as possible to his own LotR trilogy, rather than bringing Tolkien's story to life. The movies are fairly enjoyable on their own terms, but absolutely abysmal excuses for adaptations.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Feb 14 2014, 1:38pm
Post #100 of 113
(1075 views)
Shortcut
|
|
So wait, Tolkien's story as written is incredibly harmful and is in dire need of changing?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Wow, just wow.
If you really feel that strongly about that, then maybe Tolkien's stories are not for you. I think you should go and find some fantasy writer that does cater to your needs, rather than expecting existing stories to be modified for your sake.
(This post was edited by Salmacis81 on Feb 14 2014, 1:41pm)
|
|
|
|
|
