|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 8 2015, 2:50pm
Post #26 of 41
(1147 views)
Shortcut
|
..that if you're the screenwriter charged with the job of adapting the work it IS the place to be retelling the story to suit the medium in whatever way seems best to you. 
|
|
|
Thrain II
Lorien
May 8 2015, 8:11pm
Post #27 of 41
(1075 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree with Richard, that storyline was really unnecessary and because of it we lost precious time for more important things. I just hope EE will bring all the scenes we were hoping to see before the TE came out.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
May 8 2015, 10:02pm
Post #28 of 41
(1050 views)
Shortcut
|
Philippa Boyens has made it clear time after time that she herself felt the need of a female character - in the Official Movie Guide she refers to it as 'a very blokey story'. She talks about wanting to write in 'a good strong female character who could have her own story. We didn't just want to create her for the sake of it; she needed to have a purpose in the storytelling, so we looked at a few places where that could happen...' the 'I do need a female character to deepen my own interest in the story' school.
The above quote from Dormouse's post - IMO this is a self-contradictory statement, in that IMO in the case of a fully-fleshed out story - and that can be a simple fairy tale to War and Peace (and including the Hobbit) - if a character is unneeded for the story to "function" then you ARE creating a character for the sake of it - and I believe I had read (probably on a site about writer pitfalls) that all authors should ask themselves hard questions about characters they are creating - what is their purpose? Do I need this character?
IMO the addition of Alfrid - and to a small extent Percy - I think were good choices in that both Bard and the Master have someone to interact with. Bards' two daughters IMO don't do much, but the story IMO isn't affected by their presence or absence. Obviously in a film as well, fleshing out the dwarf characters was needed as the filmmakers point out.
One of my largest issues with Tauriel - and she could have been male - for all that - is that IMO Thranduil already HAD someone to interact with - his son - tho not part of the Hobbit, had "legitimate" reason to be in Mirkwood. How much more complex could Legolas' part have been , perhaps vs. a romance simply being curious about the dwarves, or arguing with his father against the wisdom of imprisoning them.
E.g. the addition of Tauriel was one character too many IMO, leaving Legolas to do little but follow Tauriel around and be an action star. It spread the "elf dynamic" too thin for the time allotted. And with the addition of Tauriel, a perfectly good story was CHANGED to GIVE her a purpose - that's not supporting as story, that's CHANGING a story.
Even then, Tauriel's function in the story needn't have been so by-the-numbers (for the "eleven year old girls that will be watching five years from now" who can probably believe in love at first sight and all). And even THEN there was no need to derail IMO the canon ending of the Durins, when the filmmakers speak of being true to the source. Agree with:
If they had maintained the story that they started (in the two film story, Tauriel's arc was simply a warrior elf who didn't want to be an isolationist like Thranduil, during a time of unrest) I think no one would hold issue.
I certainly wouldn't have had an issue - would even have found it, I think, terribly moving, if Tauriel and Kili had been separated at the lake, Tauriel had participated in the battle even after banishment, and found out later about Kili's fall - and what a skilled actress could have done with those nuances, possibly. Not to mention the waste IMO of a believable female fighter in action, which for me was one of things EL did best in these films as Tauriel. This scenario would not have changed the story at a core point - e.g., the Durins standing together at the last.
Contrast the polarizing character of Tauriel with what seems to be a ready acceptance of Hilda Bianca. Why? Because Hilda Bianca makes sense - a hardworking resident of Laketown, a strong woman, perhaps had been a fisherman's wife, runs her own little market stall. She BELONGS and is a natural fit in the flow of events. Similarly IMO it doesn't feel forced that the Master would have a toadying underling around. Alfrid IMO only becomes an issue when there is too much - e.g., begins to serve as "shoehorned-in comic relief" that again has no purpose at its point in the story IMO.
With the kind of "intellectual integrity" and research Richard did re Tolkien - after reading so many works and seeing how Tolkien built his tales, and why, I can understand from RA's perspective why he would feel as he does.
But - and we may never know - even EL has said re BOFA she was surprised she wasn't doing more fighting - and think it's well-known she really wasn't interested in some big romance part . So who can say whether EL, LP, and OB as well as Aidan didn't feel dubious about all this - but they did their jobs.
Finally, as has been said by others, BOFA is a success, but there's no way to determine whether adding Tauriel actually put people in seats, or if these "young girls five years from now" will actually care about the character, so it surprises me that that idea was used as a rationale on the part of the filmmakers.
|
|
|
Kim
Valinor
May 9 2015, 3:23am
Post #29 of 41
(1008 views)
Shortcut
|
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 9 2015, 8:43am
Post #30 of 41
(987 views)
Shortcut
|
|
On the question of Legolas, two points...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The first is that the Legolas who rides into Rivendell for the Council of Elrond is no friend to dwarves - we see his friendship with Gimli grow through the first trilogy. If in The Hobbit they had wanted simply to explore the idea of a 'younger' elf and dwarf finding that they had things in common despite the antipathy between the two races they could have done it with another elf - male or female - but I don't think they could have used Legolas to do it. If he had shown curiosity about the dwarves, or had argued with his father against imprisoning them, we would then have had to ask why his attitude had hardened so much by the time he came to Rivendell.
The second is that Legolas himself was only meant to be a brief cameo. It was Tauriel, not Legolas, who was their designated foil to the King. She was brought in to show his isolationism and express something of the essential character of the elves - and in that sense I'd argue very strongly that she IS supporting the story. The Elvenking is a key part of The Hobbit. Every other elf we meet outside the Silmarillion is benign and unequivocally on the right side. The Elvenking is basically good and kindly but he also imprisons the dwarves and acts as an obstacle to their journey. They deepened the complexity and built up his personal story for the film but they needed someone there to show his qualities and I'd say Tauriel did that very well - better, I think, than Legolas could because his learning curve comes later.
It's the expansion of Legolas's role, I think, that divides opinion, and with it the complicated currents of relationship they've set up between Legolas-Tauriel-Kili: Legolas is fond of her - she rather fancies him but the King warns her off - she is intrigued by Kili - Kili falls for her - Legolas (and, as the scene by the lakeside suggests, Fili) doesn't approve... For some people it's all too much. I don't mind it because from first to last it helps develop the character of the King and, in the process, gives an interesting history to Legolas. I love all the echoes of the Silmarillion at play there - Turgon in the King, Aredhel in Tauriel, hints of Elrond's wife Celebrian in the story they outline of Legolas's mother, and of her sons Elladan and Elrohir in Legolas. Seeing all that on screen is a real joy to me so I forgive them the odd clunky moments. And as for the effect on the dwarves, given that once PJ and co had taken Tauriel's storyline so far it was pretty obvious that they would involve her somehow in Kili's death, I thought on first viewing - and still do - that they had handled that very cleverly by involving Tauriel AND preserving the link between Thorin and his nephews. Thorin has to watch Fili die, and we see all the pain of that in his face - a very stark reminder of how he had also to watch as Azog killed his grandfather. Then he rushes to the tower to try to save Kili - as Kili himself is going headlong up the stairs to avenge his brother - makes you see how alike the pair of them are - and it's in attempting to reach Kili that Thorin comes face-to-face with Azog... The rest we know. But I don't think the essential story of The Hobbit is hurt by what they did and for me there are things in the added storylines that I really love. I have hopes for a few resolutions in the EE but prefer right now not to dwell on them - what will be will be.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 9 2015, 10:17am
Post #31 of 41
(967 views)
Shortcut
|
The inclusion of Tauriel and Legolas ARE coherent with the storyline, AND stand on their own.
I'm not sure to remember, but isn't it Thranduil who first recognizes that Tauriel was fallen in love with a dwarf, even if she herself didn't knew it ?
that would set the Elven King on a very high level of clear foresight... among many other details.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 9 2015, 1:13pm
Post #32 of 41
(942 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes, I think it is Thranduil who first realises...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
They don't spell it out, but I think it's implied that he noticed her reaction when the captured orc gloated over Kili's poisoned wound - when she was about to kill the orc and Thranduil sent her away.
|
|
|
marary
Lorien
May 9 2015, 2:32pm
Post #33 of 41
(904 views)
Shortcut
|
|
seconding every point in this post!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I love all the echoes of the Silmarillion at play there - Turgon in the King, Aredhel in Tauriel, hints of Elrond's wife Celebrian in the story they outline of Legolas's mother, and of her sons Elladan and Elrohir in Legolas.
As I slowly make my way through the Silmarillion, I can safely say that the Legolas-Tauriel-Thranduil storylines are actually quite lore-inspired. It makes repeat viewings more fun. :)
People can be a bit unfairly hard on Tauriel for being female AND a warrior AND having love interests AND having those love interests being a partial motivation in a venture AND shirking her assigned duties from the king to fight some bad guys... well, let's just say there's a lot of parallels you could draw between Tauriel and Eowyn -- the latter drops her assigned duties from Theoden (run the kingdom in my stead!) by the wayside to dress up as a man and kill the Witch King. There's a precedent for all of Tauriel's character points and behaviors in Tolkien's writings, so it's not such a jarring combination for the Tolkien-verse after all. I also thought there was a reasonable progression for the character's defiance of Thranduil.
It was Tauriel, not Legolas, who was their designated foil to the King. She was brought in to show his isolationism and express something of the essential character of the elves - and in that sense I'd argue very strongly that she IS supporting the story.
At the end of the day, I thought the character effectively deepened my understanding of Thranduil and the Woodland Realm/Mirkwood, which is a legitimately canon place/people in the story. They added or expanded events and characters to deepen the audiences understanding of the people and places of Lake-town, Dale and Erebor. Why not Mirkwood? In this respect, Tauriel definitely worked as a storytelling foil (for me).
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 9 2015, 3:29pm
Post #34 of 41
(880 views)
Shortcut
|
He also stated that Bilbo was the one who freed the dwarves as soon as he saw him, and got to immediate conclusions (Bilbo's invisibility for instance)
I'm not far to think that could pay off for a following, Gollum's chase not to name it.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
May 9 2015, 7:27pm
Post #35 of 41
(844 views)
Shortcut
|
|
As always, beautiful writing Dormouse *smiles*
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
For me:
1) IMO tho, Legolas in the LOTR film isn't all THAT "virulent" about dwarves, at least as it has always come across to me - and by the end of the council, faintly amused . E.g. to me Legolas always seemed much more angry with Boromir. So, for me, a "curiousness" about these dwarves, or expressing doubt of Thranduil's imprisonment of them for different reasons - e.g. getting other dwarves riled up (as the journey wasn't all THAT secret, and there are often comments in LOTR about "watching eyes" e.g. animals that relay information)
and the worse problem of the poisoning of Mirkwood and a growing threat ...if Legolas had done that, it wouldn't for me have disturbed me re Legolas in LOTR.
I just believe that Legolas isn't all that against dwarves - any more than the younger dwarves are against elves in general - I think the films handle that dynamic nicely - that's it's the older generation who has the issues. Legolas is nasty in Mirkwood but I took that as more the general harshness of Mirkwood elves - they are tougher "less wise, and more dangerous".
2) The Elvenking is a key part of The Hobbit. Every other elf we meet outside the Silmarillion is benign and unequivocally on the right side. The Elvenking is basically good and kindly but he also imprisons the dwarves and acts as an obstacle to their journey. They deepened the complexity and built up his personal story for the film but they needed someone there to show his qualities and I'd say Tauriel did that very well
Oh dear. Well, OK, I'll just say it - IMO again because the "trio" of Thranduil, Legolas, and Tauriel spread things too thin - I personally think the complexity and personal story of Thranduil was LESSENED in the Hobbit films, e.g. to me the line from the book "long will I tarry, 'ere I begin this war for gold" painted a large vision of this character from the book - e.g. an ageless being, complex and unfathomable and from a dwarf or human view, incomprehensible and unpredictable.
And I am a little frustrated by Thranduil's film portrayal, either because the backstory of the loss of his father and so many at Mordor was never portrayed, and Thranduil's history of loss is never really portrayed. We see him horrified by the fallen elves at Dale, but since many are dying all around, IMO he doesn't come off too well at leaving.
There are other things re the film portrayal, but especially in BOFA I see a "narrowing" of Thranduil's portrayal - he almost comes off IMO like a villain. I'm not happy with it, compared to my book vision of Thranduil.
But since the "book Thranduil" and the Thranduil that said "do not speak to me of dragonfire" and reveals a horrific wound is the Thranduil in my head (a complex character) -
that leads to not being happy either with the inclusion of the rather IMO ordinary heroine portrayal that I always felt was more typical of Disney heroines, who is in the right to chide and even threaten an ancient and complex being, and be rebellious but that is OK, and so on. There are too many illogical things for me about the Tauriel character as portrayed - including her age and being a Captain of the Guard and I found the "rebellious teen arguing with her father" scene at the end to be uncomfortable.
As well as the IMO muddled inclusion of Legolas, and what is even going on with him re Tauriel and his father.
Re:
that they had handled that very cleverly by involving Tauriel AND preserving the link between Thorin and his nephews.
Yes, it was cleverly done. But, well, it was various TORn members' comments and additional reading that finally had me "bitterly accepting" the fate of the Durins, what Tolkien's influences may have been when he constructed the end scenes, the nobility and fierceness of Norse thought - the "sister-son" concept, the importance of the king to dwarf culture.
I've said this before, but while I am no "canon purist" as I understood things, I needed to accept that certain ends were inviolate. And the Durins being together at the last was one of those.
So, while the interweaving may have been cleverly done, IMO it was 1) unneeded and 2) too "by the numbers heroine tragic ending" to have any emotional weight with me at all.
E.g., I am pretty appalled that even in an "adaptation" that PJ, Philippa and Fran I guess were so enamored with their created character that they would effectively torpedo such a key moment and alter it with an IMO fairly by-the-numbers scenario. Also, IMO, if so much time had not been allotted with Tauriel and Bolg - which is not effective IMO except for some nice choreography here and there - then IMO more time could have been, and should have been, allotted to Fili and Kili at the last.
E.g. that end should have been about the dwarves and Bilbo as written, not giving a lot of screen time to Tauriel, IMO - so in that sense - and in giving a fair amount of time to Tauriel crying at the end - I think the story WAS hurt in a way that should not have happened. Cleverly done, but it wasn't Tauriel's place to be there.
But re:
I love all the echoes of the Silmarillion at play there - Turgon in the King, Aredhel in Tauriel, hints of Elrond's wife Celebrian in the story they outline of Legolas's mother, and of her sons Elladan and Elrohir in Legolas. Seeing all that on screen is a real joy to me so I forgive them the odd clunky moments.
I really appreciate this, and CAN understand your views and why - very well written response. And yes, what will be will be, and I personally hope that the IMO way too tight editing is softened!
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 9 2015, 8:11pm
Post #36 of 41
(826 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thranduil's motive is a bit murky here.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
They don't spell it out, but I think it's implied that he noticed her reaction when the captured orc gloated over Kili's poisoned wound - when she was about to kill the orc and Thranduil sent her away.
Another interpretation of Thranduil's dismissal of Tauriel here is that he did not want her present when he realized that the Orc was speaking of an alliance between Smaug and the Necromancer. It is possible that both ideas might be correct.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
marary
Lorien
May 9 2015, 9:13pm
Post #37 of 41
(807 views)
Shortcut
|
If she was present for the interrogation, she's obviously someone Thranduil considers privy to certain information. If he doesn't want Tauriel in the know on possibly sensitive matters, why make her captain of the guard and allow her to be part of an interrogation in the first place?
Why would Thranduil need to hide from Tauriel a possible alliance between Smaug and the Necromancer? Tauriel is already pretty knowledgeable about the particulars of evil forces spawning on Dol Guldur (even if she doesn't know it's Sauron). Why is this information special? And why can't Tauriel know about it? Up until now, everything indicates that Tauriel follows Thranduil's orders (not to engage or pursue beyond the borders) even if she doesn't like it, so why is there harm in her knowing, from Thranduil's perspective?
I'm pretty sure he tells her to leave because she was losing her temper and acting recklessly.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 9 2015, 9:23pm
Post #38 of 41
(801 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, Thranduil apparently wanted to keep Legolas from catching on as well, as he dispatches the Orc before it can clarify its threats. Thror is not the only ruler in Rhovanion who as problems with sharing. In Thraduil's case that includes sharing information.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
May 11 2015, 5:36pm
Post #39 of 41
(697 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Tauriel & female characters in general
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
We can fuss all we want about the way Black Widow was portrayed - sexist? eye candy? - but at the end of the day The Avengers Age of Ultron is still the no. 1 movie, while the girl-produced, girl-buddy film Hot Pursuit "underwhelmed" its way into second place. Now, why is that? We women claim we want "strong female characters"; some say that we're "conditioned" to watch movies with lots of male leads, and maybe that's true, considering how many people object to Tauriel for various reasons. Yes, she came off better in DOS than in BOT5A, the romantic sub-plot really undermined her character. Having said that, it does irk me that we DON'T have alot of "strong female characters" out there, and I think we could definitely use more, whether they are Black Widow, Katniss Everdeen, or even Ripley from the "Alien" series. And I guess I object to the idea that adding a female character to a 100% male story wasn't "necessary." I suppose you could write ANY story without a female character, and therefore it would technically be "unnecessary" to add a female character, EXCEPT that I may actually like to read/watch a movie about a strong female character. So, whether something is "unnecessary" is strictly a matter of opinion, and considering how well both BOT5A and "Avengers" has done, maybe adding female characters is NOT so "unnecessary" after all.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 11 2015, 11:07pm
Post #41 of 41
(645 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't think Thranduil sends Tauriel away because he sees from her reaction that she has feelings for Kili. I think he sends her away because he wants to carry on the interrogation without her - a king wouldn't make the captain of the guard privy to all his secrets. He is just about to tell the orc that he will let him go in return for information - that's very likely something he wouldn't want to be generally known.
But I do think her reaction is what tells him how she feels - maybe then, maybe after he has had time to think. After all, the next time they meet he will know all about it.
|
|
|
|
|
