|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Mar 16 2015, 4:51pm
Post #51 of 148
(1973 views)
Shortcut
|
"I never knew the (meta) backstory Jackson & Co. had for Tauriel being an orphan. Very interesting."
See:
http://tvtropes.org/.../CommonMarySueTraits
E.g., I was surprised at how by-the-numbers in media the character is - e.g., as the fillmmakers are very experienced and seem to work very hard to keep things fresh in these films - Beorn's design being an example.
But at least Tauriel wasn't carrying katanas.
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Mar 16 2015, 4:54pm
Post #52 of 148
(1964 views)
Shortcut
|
In the section of Appendix 10, the Peoples and Denizens of Middle-earth entitled, appropriately enough, "The Spawn of Ungoliant."
'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
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Mar 16 2015, 5:08pm
Post #53 of 148
(1968 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You should be careful about telling other people "enough"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Just sayin'.
'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
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Mar 16 2015, 5:10pm
Post #54 of 148
(1961 views)
Shortcut
|
I am in agreement with you on the rest of your post, but I do have to say that I LOVED the picture at the end about dwarf culture 
Not only does it help bring things into perspective in terms of the whole human vs dwarf nature, but it also helps me with an element of my fan fiction as well Thanks for finding it!
(though if it's meant to be a signature pic, you might want to make it a little smaller)
|
|
|
marary
Lorien
Mar 16 2015, 5:12pm
Post #55 of 148
(1956 views)
Shortcut
|
Generally against Mary Sue witch hunts. Either you like a character or you don't. Something resonates or it doesn't. Either you learn something from a character or you don't. That's all that matters. Plenty of characters fit the "Official Sue" bill, but you know what? They're still fun to watch. They messed up in a few places for Tauriel, but for me, she worked on a whole.
The tragic backstory wasn't in the film. I just found it interesting that the filmmakers at least at one point envisioned this for her. (Thorin has a tragic backstory. Is he a Sue? No. Because he is male. Are women not allowed to have tragic backstories that don't even get a focus?)
For every Sue trait Tauriel has, there's at least one she doesn't. Here's one pulled randomly from that page:
"Highly persuasive, regardless of the actual content of their conversations. Everyone finds her opinions are just better than their own - even when they're usually stubborn (beagles). This is especially likely in an Author Tract."
I don't see Tauriel as very pursuasive. Thranduil is distinctly unpersuaded by her on several occasions.
"Her "major flaws" will be stubbornness and a bad temper. These will only ever help her, never hurt her — because she's always right, so whatever cause she dedicates herself to with such stubbornness will be a good cause, and whoever she loses her temper with will deserve it."
She is stubborn and does have a temper, but I don't think these are her biggest flaws either. She loses her temper at Thranduil... but in that scene, it's very easy to empathize with Thranduil as well.
And I'm not sure how vindicated Tauriel ends up being in her "righteous temper". We don't see her temper very often. It's nothing overbearing.
Furthermore...
Arwen has a tragic background (her mother was tortured by orcs and sailed away), is impossibly beautiful, and also falls into an inter species romance. Is she a Sue? Or does she get a pass for being written by Tolkien?
Luthien has more than a few Sue traits, but she's still enjoyable as a character (I thought).
In all media and literature, and ESPECIALLY Middle Earth, I wish we could just move past "Mary Sue" fingerpointing. There are better questions we can be asking about the integrity of characters.
(This post was edited by Ataahua on Mar 16 2015, 5:54pm)
|
|
|
Starling
Half-elven
Mar 16 2015, 5:17pm
Post #56 of 148
(1950 views)
Shortcut
|
I have been trying to formulate a response but it's too early in the morning!
I find labelling characters in films is about as useful as labelling people in real life. But then, I think I am possibly a Mary-Sue myself, if people would like to label me.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Mar 16 2015, 5:32pm
Post #57 of 148
(1939 views)
Shortcut
|
|
So fine and specific statement !
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It should be copied and sticked to clear the air everywhere this repetitive Marie-Sue-alert pollution is thrown into conversations 
Does Marie-Sue have two eyes ? YES
Does this gal have two eyes ? YES
So how can you deny that this gal with two eyes is a Marie-Sue ? CURSED IF YOU DENY IT !
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Mar 16 2015, 5:42pm
Post #58 of 148
(1937 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I just took the Mary Sue Litmus Test for Tauriel
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Anything above a 50 is a Mary Sue. Tauriel's score?
150!
So yeah- she's a total MS. Fully in agreement with you there! 
Perhaps the writers should have taken this test for Tauriel BEFORE they bothered to write the character's lines and story arc- it might have fared better had they done so
|
|
|
marary
Lorien
Mar 16 2015, 5:51pm
Post #59 of 148
(1924 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Everyone has a bit of "Sue" in them
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm impossibly beautiful, and let me tell you, it's such a curse. AM I TO BLAME? *weeps beautifully*
 JK
My main beef with Mary Sues is that while a male analogue was created (Gary Stu) the stigma still largely regards women. That's just not fair. It's in fact deep-seated sexism running around under the guise of literary criticism. So I don't like what the "trope" perpetuates. I'm all for diversity of female characters, but Mary Sue accusations are too often used to devalue down "strong" female characters, which there is most certainly still a place for.
When it comes down to it, strong female characters are more at risk for being labeled Sues than weak female characters. That's not fair. Should all female characters be weak to avoid being Sues? I hardly think so!
I think disliking Tauriel for being a "shoehorn" is way more fair than disliking her for being a Sue.
|
|
|
Starling
Half-elven
Mar 16 2015, 6:01pm
Post #60 of 148
(1909 views)
Shortcut
|
your perfect and special hair doesn't get in the way of your beautiful weeping.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Mar 16 2015, 6:20pm
Post #61 of 148
(1895 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You make an interesting point.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There was not enough of Tauriel's backstory in the films to explain her actions and motivations beyond her interactions with Kili. We can't expect every background detail developed for a complex film series to make it onto the screen; much of it is there just to inform the actors about their roles and to aid the crew in making the production feel more authentic. However, we can certainly hope that details that make the characters more easily understood by the audience will make it into the movie(s).
Arwen has a tragic background (her mother was tortured by orcs and sailed away), is impossibly beautiful, and also falls into an inter species romance. Is she a Sue? Or does she get a pass for being written by Tolkien?
Tolkien's Arwen is not a Mary-Sue, mainly because she stays in the background and isn't really a featured player. A better case can be made for movie-Arwen, though.
Luthien Tinuviel as Mary-Sue? Hmmm. That could be quite the debate!
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Mar 16 2015, 6:28pm)
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Mar 16 2015, 6:22pm
Post #62 of 148
(1900 views)
Shortcut
|
Many of the boxes I ticked on the MS litmus test WERE in reference to ways she was shoehorned in....
Mary Sue status in literature and movies (and Garu Stu, as you mentioned) doesn't always revolve around beauty and love. There are many other factors at work in that conclusion- attention (positive, negative, romantic, familial, etc) that count towards the MS count.
Some points that I can think of just off the top of my head:
1. Orphan
2. Adopted by a canon character (Thranduil, as a ward)
3. Revenge
4. Speaking morally profound and deep words
5. Convincing others that her way of thinking and morals are correct (not that it's bad thing per se with her "Are we not part of this world" speech, but got OTT with her confrontation of Thranduil for one dwarf, rather than defending the clearly overwhelmed lakemen and dwarf armies, etc)
6. Having multiple canon characters fall in love
7. Changing the fates/stories/endings of canon characters (having Kili die for her, rather than defending Thorin, her rejection being the reason why Legolas leaves Mirkwood, as opposed to coming to the Council of Elrond accompanied by what looked an awful lot like an elvish royal guard to me, etc)
8. Receiving an object from someone they barely met that holds a great deal of value to this person (Kili)
9. Abandoning her ideals for her sweetie (again, Kili and Ravenhill instead of helping the struggling warriors around her)
10. Everything she says and does is justified by other characters or is meant to appear as justified to the audience (confronting Thranduil)
11. Being unusually skilled in multiple areas (healing, warrior, scout, moral compass, etc).
And the list goes on- it's not just about being romantically involved with canon characters (though that's often a MS trait). It's the fact that her entire story was shoehorned in at the expense of the canon character's story arcs and the overall plot of the story.
That point that I made in bold right there is the main reason why Tauriel is a Mary Sue by creative definition. It has nothing to do with whether or not she is a strong woman or a strong character, and nothing to do with her gender (except that she'd be a Gary Stu if she was male)- it has everything to do with how her storyline and arc interfered with the plot of the original story.
Some parts of her addition served to enrich the story, like the Feast of Starlight scene (which was by far one of the most beautiful scenes that Tolkien never wrote for me). And she served as a good foil for Legolas and Thranduil in Mirkwood, barring the "Legolas has grown fond of you" lines. I even liked her "Are we not part of this world?" speech, as it spoke of an elf's original purpose as a shepherd of the other races of ME.
It's when we fast forward to BO5A (and include her healing scene, as Elrond was an exception to the rule that an elf cannot be both a healer and a warrior else their healing capacity diminishes), that her Mary Sue-ness becomes glaringly apparent in the way she interferes with the story and the character's individual arcs and conclusions. The only redemption for her presence in BO5A (as far as how her scenes ended up going) was that she and Legolas scouted Gundabad and thus were away and not interfering with the main plot.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Legolas can bear the title of Gary Stu in the Hobbit films, and that's saying something from me as he was my favorite character in LOTR (and no, not because of his appearance) along with Aragorn.
It's not that she's a girl. It's that her story shoehorned and derailed the plot, especially for key characters (Kili, Thranduil, Thorin) whose arcs are vitally important for this third act of the story.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Mar 16 2015, 6:51pm
Post #63 of 148
(1877 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm thankful to say that I haven't a clue what a Mary Sue is (and please don't anyone bother about telling me, I'm very happy in my ignorance of this one.)
It's jargon - an easy label which by-passes the need to think about the individual whatever-it-is. And like all jargon, it communicates something to those who know, and leaves others mystified. I agree with you on this one - all characters are better judged as individuals, not 'types'.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Mar 16 2015, 7:10pm
Post #64 of 148
(1870 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thranduils triangulation & Disappearing Dwarves
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am not in favour of shoe horning Tauriel into a stereotype and would rather deal with her on her merits. There seems to be a consensus that if John Howe's description had arrived on screen then many would enjoy Tauriel a good deal more. However there is a much bigger topic in here which is kind of the elephant in the room -The Dwarves non appearance in the final movie.
Knowing how candid Sir Peter is I think he will address this in the directors commentary in November, he has every other seemingly contentious point. There are I believe two points to distinct difficulties here based on what arrived on the screen :-
1) He started off determined to honour the book and give us 13 Dwarves but by the end he was offering us 4/6 and 9/7 extras. He discovered you just cannot engage with 13 co leads.
2) He triangulated Bard and Thranduil and it would appear fell in love with two of the supports to those triangulation's Alfrid and Tauriel and decided to take Orlando Bloom from cameo to Co Star.
The solution was back in 2008/10 when the four of them were writing and for me it lay in
1) Reducing the Dwarves to 8 and making sure that they wrote up the scenes where their was natural potential for drama on the journey. In the final film its outside Erebor and Thorins guile and inside Erebor its Thorins sickness. I am not suggesting for one moment this was entirely absent, far from it, but they could have moved down that path a great deal more and much easily with less Dwarves.
2) Give all of the 8 crucial story changing moments. Which dwarf would be able to help Bilbo read the riddle of the door and send messages to the Ravens - the scribe perchance.
3) Keep an absolutely tight rain on the two sets of triangulations.
4) Ensure the stand off between Thorin/Bolg and Kili ( and Fili if you have both) are the sole turning point of the battle so you are left with the mythological ending but knowing that Dain/Bard and Legolas (it is our fight) are now buddies.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
Mar 16 2015, 7:10pm
Post #65 of 148
(1880 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Except that the post to which Avandel replied...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...is basically implying the same thing.
"Enough criticism of Kili and Tauriel because it'll be fixed in the EE."
"Being negative only makes a difficult journey more difficult. You may be given a cactus, but you don't have to sit on it."
--Joyce Meyer
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP
--Leonard Nimoy
(This post was edited by RosieLass on Mar 16 2015, 7:11pm)
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
Mar 16 2015, 7:16pm
Post #66 of 148
(1865 views)
Shortcut
|
Especially because it prevents Tauriel from falling into the tired stereotype of the damsel in distress who needed to be rescued by a man.
Even though the story didn't need to be "fixed" by adding a female character, the Tauriel of DOS is the strong, capable female character that I admire. I would love to see more original films with characters like DOS Tauriel.
"Being negative only makes a difficult journey more difficult. You may be given a cactus, but you don't have to sit on it."
--Joyce Meyer
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP
--Leonard Nimoy
|
|
|
marary
Lorien
Mar 16 2015, 7:46pm
Post #67 of 148
(1851 views)
Shortcut
|
I think you hit a lot of points head on, but I'll counter with this:
[quote]It's not that she's a girl. It's that her story shoehorned and derailed the plot, especially for key characters (Kili, Thranduil, Thorin) whose arcs are vitally important for this third act of the story.
[/quote]
It comes down to a matter of opinion. Did she derail their character arcs, or did she enhance them? For me, Kili getting to explore this thing he has for elf-maids makes the character more fun and form a connection with an elf at about the same time as getting frustrated/disillusioned with Thorin was interesting.
[quote]It's not that she's a girl. It's that her story shoehorned and derailed the plot, especially for key characters (Kili, Thranduil, Thorin) whose arcs are vitally important for this third act of the story.
[/quote]
Kili and Thranduil- matter of opinion how much she derails/enhances them. I rather enjoyed Kili's development through the romance (esp. feast of starlight, but even later). And at the end, Kili's still charging up the hill with his uncle and avenging his brother.
I'm missing her connection with derailing Thorin though, other than bringing along Legolas, who lends Thorin a hand at a crucial moment.
But your absolutely right that if one takes issue with Tauriel's presence, you sort of have to take issue with Legolas as well.
(This post was edited by marary on Mar 16 2015, 7:49pm)
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Mar 16 2015, 8:12pm
Post #68 of 148
(1846 views)
Shortcut
|
Cirashala,
You could tell more of the same about Arwen and Galadriel. Don't they come and save the day even more easily than Tauriel ?
Even Eowyn went Mary-Sue when she alone killed the Witch-King of Angmar.
And if you look further into Tolkien's elvish heroins, I'm not sure you will find many different profiles than Mary-Sues.
So if you are seeking honesty, you may admit that being respectful to Tolkien canons induces characterizing Mary-Sues.
If you don't like it, free to you, but don't forget to blame the source .
Specifically about Tauriel :
- She gets interrupted in many moves she makes : for instance, there is one orc she wants to kill twice, but is summoned each time not to do so by Legolas first, than Thranduil
- In the halls she gets deceived in her wish to fight the spiders further on, then ruled out of a potential promotion by Thranduil, cutting down any eventual expectations of seducing Legolas
- In the elves Jail, she gets joked by a dwarf compulsory flirting with any elf (male of female), coming in sight, and after that each and every of the dwarves she had the responsibility to guard end... escaping.
- In Laketown she fights well but is shoehorned in a position where she has to chose between following Legolas and let a dwarf die, then chose to let the dwarf die just before the shift came when Bofur brought a remedy
- Yes she cures a dwarf out of imminent death, but only because she applies ancient rules seemingly for the first time if we judge by her stressed attitude
- In Laketown she doesn't do anything against a Dragon burning a whole City and just lets a child run to a probable death and an eventual heroic destiny
- On the Lake Shores she is asked by a dwarf to follow them and almost hesitates to do so, without having elaborated her own stance about the global situation : if she had followed Kili, she would have left people of Laketown behind.
- On the Lake Shores she learns that she is banished, and would have been left alone if Legolas hadn't been there to carry her to Gundabad.
- In Gundabad we learn that she didn't knew anything about it
- Back in Dale, she points an arrow against her own king just to see it instantly broken and herself almost killed by her angry opponent. Then she follows... Legolas.
- On Ravenhill she arrives too late to save Fili and somewhat disturbs Kili doing his fight thing. She fights Bolg and ends badly beaten. Then her 'beloved' Kili dies right under her eyes without her being left able to do a single move to save him.
- Once Kili dead, she asks Thranduil to get rid of that 'love' and complains that she is badly hurt.
All in one, very, very, very very Marishoesque indeed, doesn't it seem ?
IMHO, pushing too loudly the Marie-Sue button upon her fate might end getting Tauriel an even more comical status than Alfrid himself.
Isn't she much more Anti-Marie-Sue than Marie-Sue ?
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Mar 16 2015, 8:38pm
Post #69 of 148
(1842 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And about Tauriel disturbing the canon plot,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
let's look again.
1) The dwarves had to get captured by Thranduil : did she interfere or did she execute ?
2) The dwarves had to escape Thranduil : did she empeach or was she powerless ?
3) The dwarves had to reach the lake : when she fought the orcs, did she hurt that purpose or did she help it happen ?
4) After PJ split the dwarves in Laketown and let a wounded Kili doomed to die in the city and the other three dwarves being burnt by the dragon, did she interfere or did she help the dwarves getting together in Erebor ?
5) When she went to Gundabad, did she interfere or was she kept outside both the negociations and the battlefield
6) When she (and Legolas) came up to Ravenhill, did they interfere with the story plot or help its outcome happen, that is killing Bolg AND Azog ?
7) In Ravenhill, did she (and Legolas) save Thorin, Kili and Fili, or do they meet their destiny.
So, which expense of the canon character's story arcs and/or overall plot of the story have been destroyed by Tauriel (and Legolas) ?
For what I can judge, it seems that both of them have been used as tools to let it happen the way it had to
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Mar 16 2015, 10:03pm
Post #70 of 148
(1796 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The dwarves did not disappear in the movie
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But in the book they did, at such a point that Tolkien himself stated that they had almost been forgotten ! (Just before their charge)
The movie did better. :
- The split in Lake-town induced directly two storylines instead of one, each of them dividing the number of dwarves involved.
--> so we could see Thorin, Balin, Ori, Nori, Dori, Bombur, Bifur, Gloin, Dwalin act much more distinctively than if they were 4 more, especially during the Dragon's battle, but also in front of the gate and behind the gate
--> Idem in LakeTown : Kili, Fili, Bofur and Oin had each their things to do, beginning by the split itself
This choice pays off after Smaug's attack : we can concentrate about the dwarves in Erebor and the dwarves in Laketown.
- We have also more interaction between the dwarves inside Erebor than we have in the book, where they don't do much other things than seeking the Arkenstone and counting the treasure. PJ gave us the recollection of the dwarves instead of none, plus the Dragon Sickness affair and Thorin's suspicion towards his kin.
- After the beginning of the battle, we see some confrontation between the dwarves and Thorin (Kili, Dwalin, Balin weeping) where there had been almost none in the book
- Then the Ravenhill battle is a highlight for Thorin, Kili, Fili and Dwalin, much more intense than what is told in the book, all that being only told afterwards to Bilbo recovering after being knocked unconscious.
Plus, there will be obviously more stuff in the EE, to begin with the cart rally between Erebor and Dale, and the meeting of the Whargs.
We also can expect something about the Dwarves exploring Erebor after the moment they knew the dragon was dead and the Dwarves in Laketown at the same time, the Dwarves fighting beyond Erebor, the Dwarves preparing the burial ceremony and discussing about the crowning of Dain (what about the Arkenstone transaction ?), and getting to their new life in their recovered kingdom, not to forget (maybe) Balin finaly visiting Bilbo in Bag End. Much dwarf material in sight.
Many complained about Alfrid taking time at the expense of the dwarves, but I think Laketowners had to be shown, and Alfrid was a very useful tool to make them (especially the women) get into action instead of being kept behind. Tauriel by far is not the only token female one, Alfrid's Nemesis is of course the most prominent, but Bard's daughters are not far beyond.
I secretly hope that we'll learn something about at least a widowed one, Braga's wife, reputed in all Laketown to be coquette. How will the citymen react when they will learn that she had been freed by Smaug ?
Back to the subject, the Dwarves couldn't creep more into the center of the story because Tolkien didn't write it so, and because it would have been at the expense of every other protagonists, orcs included, Bilbo and Gandalf included. They catalyzed the Battle, they did not occupy it.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Mar 16 2015, 10:10pm
Post #71 of 148
(1792 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Disturb or Distract and Whats Canon
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am really with Dormouse on this to test a character against a set of criteria which are not universally understood (I have never heard of the term) is to come away from the central point which is does Tauriel amongst others support or distract from the main story which is the Dwarves Quest For Erebor and the journey of the company.
PJ and Co decided on a number of non Canon outcomes.
1) Azog is alive not dead.
2) Beorn is not responsible for Thorin's adversaries death.
3) They replaced a non canon character Fimbul the Scout with Bolg and created an adversorial story line with Legolas that was planted in DOS.
4) They split the armies into two so Azog leads one and Bolg leads another. So Bolg brings in The Gunderbad army.
Whether you think that enhances the central story of the Dwarves Quest for Erebor they certainly complicate the plot lines.
It seems to me in the denouement Legolas and Bolg are guilty of distracting us from the central story of Thorin and Kili has been "taken" by the Tauriel/Legolas/Thranduil storyline. Indeed he dies because of her. But is her role in these changes anymore significant in creating what they did than any of the others. I think not,
To put it another way round if I wanted to "Solve" or "make better" IMHO what we have it would not just involve Tauriel.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Mar 16 2015, 11:17pm
Post #72 of 148
(1775 views)
Shortcut
|
And Bomby of course, as it seems from posts, has a refreshing enthusiasm about
PJ's work.
Plus, all have, by default, a right to their perceptions and opinions.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Mar 16 2015, 11:26pm
Post #73 of 148
(1767 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Following the book-canon would have been a mess.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Because that is how Tolkien describes the battle of Five armies : the orcs arrive by waves, so do the whargs, and the killing is everywhere, Bolg somewhere in the middle, met at some point by Thorin with his nephews.
Having Azog AND Bolg means that we have something which is half-structured : it uncovers itself that Azog had planned a coordinated attack, but the arrival of the dwarves in Erebor and the demise of Smaug weren't in Azog's plans so the chief orc also had to improvise. Late does he send Bolg to call for Gundabad army, and late does this second army arrive, only to be cut in pieces by the eagles.
The result is an very structured battle in the beginning, thus interesting one, followed by a short-cut mess in the end, with the quick demise of Bolg's army. We are induced to admit that this second army coming from Gundabad without any previous plan... by Bolg is as book-like as it could be cinematographically.
And we are also induced to learn that soon Azog had not mainly be introduced to flesh out AUJ and DOS, but moreso to flesh out BOTFA, where he reveals himself at the peak of his cruelty and danger. For an adaptation, I find this construction interesting. Tauriel in the whole picture is just one tiny and solitary protagonist whose arcs ends to have Thorin killing himself Azog instead of Dain doing the job, and Legolas killing Bolg instead of a furious Beorn crushing the Orc.
Whatever we may consider, Azog/Fili/Thorin drama, and Bolg/Kili/Tauriel/Legolas episode give much more sense to end such a trilogy than the canon-book-ending would have done. We learnt that Beorn may shine elsewhere, and who in the audience would have Billy Connoly kill Azog rather than Richard Armitage ? As much as I for myself longed for a 'canon' ending, as much I think I understand now why it couldn't have been done that way... in the movie.
Yes, Dain's glory is a little overshadowed in the process, but :
1) Dain appears nowhere in LOTR movies; so it's less important for the story to introduce him in all his glory in one former movie. Would LOTR have shown the battle in the north, things might have been different, but the fact is LOTR had been shot first so none of its audiences could then connect with Dale and Erebor. This absence of connection is mostly why, I guess, Dain went off-the-chart even in the Theater Edition.
2) Beorn is a solitary fellow. His case is much different than Dain's, for in the book, Beorn's own people are... the bears. The problem there is that if you have the Bears, you must also have the Wolves (aka the Wargs), The Bats, the Eagles, the Birds... and that's simply too much to handle !
Leave Narnia to Lewis ! : That became Tolkien's true canon, as he had dropped almost of his animal's kingdomry at the turn of LOTR. Of course that was still not the case when he wrote Bilbo, but had he written a 'new Bilbo' after the Ring, there is no way Tolkien would have re-introduced his former animal kingdoms in it.
I now think PJ and co understood that coming to the same conclusions drived them directly to drop the whargs army, as soon as the first installment AUJ. That drop was motivated much more profoundly than just because of a movie-maker caprice or his lack of interest for animals speaking (after all, we have Smaug's speaking, and doing quite well so).
The drop of animal kingdoms has of course a huge impact on Beorn, for he loses his own people. "Once there were many" "Now I'm alone". Thus, exit the bears, but also exit the standing dogs, the standing goats, almost all Beorn's identity.
What is left ? Only Beorn, solitary chained to his past as a shape-shifter.
But who would be to blame for that ? Fate ?
After a bit of reflexion, it's easy to understand that Orcs will do just fine. Those monsters will be told as those who killed Beorn's people, even if Tolkien never imagined that orcs could be able to eradicate wild bears.
Instead, P Jackson imagined that orcs were able to eradicate shape-shifters... except the last one. Which better idea could you find ?
Then, the bears gone, what's left ? Orcs of course. That's the main reason why we got the revival of Azog : two Orcs, because animal-fighters by their own are mostly gone (except eagles - and bats)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Mar 16 2015, 11:59pm
Post #74 of 148
(1756 views)
Shortcut
|
I understand what you mean but, honestly, the Battle of Five Armies as Tolkien relates it is not that hard to follow or understand. Karen Wynn Fonstad provided a useful and informative diagram of it for The Atlas of Middle-earth:
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Mar 17 2015, 12:12am
Post #75 of 148
(1753 views)
Shortcut
|
I appreciate that you took the time to look at the link I referenced, whether you agree or not, e.g. that I wasn't sounding off just because I randomly decided fairly early on this character (or more specifically, the amount of screen time allotted to this character) was one I just dislike, just because.
This:
Plenty of characters fit the "Official Sue" bill, but you know what? They're still fun to watch. They messed up in a few places for Tauriel, but for me, she worked on a whole.
I suppose that's the crux of the matter for me, perhaps. That given a limited amount of screen time, along with early remarks: "we [PJ & co.] are going to elevate dwarf culture"; that "we will find our way into the story through the dwarves", that "each and every dwarf will have their moment in BOFA"; and so on.
So if you are going to do something of a jog in your planned/promised narrative and shift focus to a new character - for me - for one thing (aside from enhancing the story itself) for me, this character needed to be something amazing. Someone so fresh and original that I would have regretted Tolkien never wrote the story that way to begin with. That I could say to myself, "I see why they did that and it's great".
Which for me happens pretty often in the Hobbit films.
Obviously, for me, that didn't happen re Tauriel. Yet at the same time there are a few interactions in BOFA (Dwalin, Balin) that to me are so compelling it leaves me mourning what might have been (as well as feeling something besides irritation over the way Kili is lost - e.g., IMO, Kili and Fili as characters DESERVED that sister-son bitter end as written, if it was going to happen.)
(Are we speaking of the Arwen of the films? Well, I never liked the huge emphasis on her in LOTR - as well as some other IMO inexplicable things in LOTR but that's for the other forum.)
Many - including critics - describe Tauriel as "refreshing". I do not, re the link I referenced and other essays, viewing her more as - well, folks don't want labels so I will use an adjective - UNORIGINAL with a character and physical characteristics I tend to run into in YA fiction, fan fiction, and Disney films (except there the character can usually sing, too ). And I don't feel it was a character worth changing a story to that degree simply to accommodate the addition - e.g., for me, it didn't work, and has more of the feeling of a YA film stuffed into the Hobbit film.
Which, in a sense, as PJ and Philippa have commented, Tauriel is. A character that they envision will appeal to 11-year old girls five years from now.
Which doesn't work for me, not in this setting, and/or the implementation, in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
