|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 14 2014, 3:14pm
Post #101 of 113
(871 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Harmful? Not even mostly harmful.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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.
Yes, The Hobbit is woefully short on female characters, but you go too far in the end. The book is a children's story written for Tolkien's own offspring. Even his daughter didn't seem to object much to the lack of girls in the story.
The Professor represents women at least a bit better in his other works. The Lord of the Rings has strong, major supporting characters in Galadriel and Eowyn. Arwen symbolically gives Aragorn strength and even Goldberry and Rose Cotton are engaging for the little time that they get. Even Lobella Sackville-Baggins becomes a more sympathetic character by the end of the tale.
Then there are the ladies from his remaining works: Melian, Luthien, Celebrian, Elwing, Princess Mee, the Vala Yavanna, etc.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
glor
Rohan
Feb 14 2014, 4:25pm
Post #103 of 113
(862 views)
Shortcut
|
I find the argument that Tauriel is addition intended to give more of a female voice within the story a bit misleading. If there is an argument that goes; Fili and Kili have been designed as eye candy for the (young) female audience then that argument should also be applied to Tauriel in that she has been introduced as eye candy for the (younger) male audience.
The fact that young females can only watch a film like TH because of eye candy but not apply the same principle to young males is also an example of the sociological concept of male privilege.
I would also like to say that I find the dismissal of Tolkien's ability to write female characters or understand gender misses the point( a point not necessarily I would add aimed at you personally, just a general observation); Tolkien was writing in the tradition of ancient North european mythology where male characters dominate the narratives, yet Tolkien's work contains some quite interesting females, whose prescence is never tokenism, nor to provide sexual interest, as often is the case with contemporary fantasy writers. Tolkien also hints at an understanding of gender that predates much of the mainstream feminist work on the subject, His description of female dwarves and that those not of the dwarven race mistaking them for males because of the outward male gender signifier that are beards, is insightful. Even his female characters whose narrative is one of romance like Arwen, are written with a strength of character that makes them more complex than the silly fawning femlae crushes contained in fairy tales as in Tolkien's work, love and loyalty are born of strength not weakness.
(This post was edited by glor on Feb 14 2014, 4:26pm)
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Feb 14 2014, 8:27pm
Post #104 of 113
(833 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Tauriel can be both eye candy (of a sort) and a female voice.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Of course one reason that Tauriel has been added to The Hobbit movies is as eye candy for males but IMO she isn't objectified in the same way many fantasy movie females are with their revealing outfits and sexualized behavior. She has her own story. As the only female besides Galadriel, any “love story” had to involve her. I could have done without that story but it is what it is.
Tolkien wrote some great female characters but given the genre and time and place he was writing, it’s not surprising they are few in number.
The book doesn't need the addition of female characters but this is the movie, three movies, made for a modern audience and not just children and the nostalgic, not just people who've read the book. My opinion is that Tauriel is a good addition to DoS and enhances it in several ways.
|
|
|
simplyaven
Grey Havens
Feb 15 2014, 3:57am
Post #105 of 113
(818 views)
Shortcut
|
Books are never adapted faithfully for movies. There is no example out there that can counter this statement.
This is 100% untrue. It makes me wonder how many non-Hollywood movies based on books you actually refer to. I'd strongly recommend watching Russian adaptations of Russian classics, English for the English classics, etc. While today the British cinema is heavily influenced by Hollywood, just about 15 years ago it looked different. An adaptation to script will always shorten and combine to make it into a movie length but by no means it allows or is a green light to major changes as adding characters and new subplots. This is a major change. A great example of another similar failure was the D'Artagnan "daughter" the "modern" French cinema came up with. I was living in France at the time and I remember how Marceau, otherwise a darling to the French public, was suddenly seen as some cheap invention. Such things rarely pass the test of time, often don't make it even at the same moment. To make the long story short, there are hundreds of beautiful book adaptations out there which have followed the rule for shortening and chrystalizing the main points but have never went beyond what the author really put into his work. In fact, aside from the Hobbit movies, I can't recall another mish-mash of that kind I've ever watched and I love watching book adaptations. I guess there are faithful book adaptations made by Hollywood too. Not these days though.
Middle earth recipes archive
I believe
|
|
|
simplyaven
Grey Havens
Feb 15 2014, 4:04am
Post #106 of 113
(808 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Changing the story doesn't help
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Many book adaptations have been shot without inventing new characters and plots. This, in literature, is considered a major change. Same in cinematography and script writing. This is not like exchanging the places of situation A with B and then playing A because it flows better. Both situations are still present. This is 1. inventing an unexisting character and 2. giving this character an unexisting plot which drags behind changes for other characters too. It's an avalanche. I don't really see how changing the original work to such extend, in fact re-writing it, helps the non-readers. It neither promotes the real sotury, nor does it reflect it correctly. I, for one, prefer to watch adaptations in which I see the story *adapted* for the screen, i'e. shortened most often, summarized here and there, long background stories turned into hints and flashbacks, but that's it. Not rewritten. It shows me the beauty of the story itself. It puts the story and the author in the spotlight, doesn't steal it from them.
Middle earth recipes archive
I believe
|
|
|
simplyaven
Grey Havens
Feb 15 2014, 4:15am
Post #107 of 113
(812 views)
Shortcut
|
Absolutely agree with you. More so, Tolkien wrote about Aragorn and Arwen's story as being "very important". In fact, to me, the Appendix about their story is there on purpose. Had the story been injected in the main plot, it would have been shortened to a few conversations here and there and swallowed. But Tolkien assigned to this "very important" story a separate place, for it only. On top of that, being behind it basically remains a treat for those who don't stop with the end of the main story. To me the Aragorn and Arwen's story place has always been a hint about Tolkien's appreciation, long before I read his own words on it which proved my guess was correct. I also find it really annoying that a woman must be always thrown at the forefront and the difficulty so many apparently have realizing how much strength Tolkien put into his Arwen. A silent but unbreakable strength which didn't needed demonstration but remained a source of energy for the man she loved.
Middle earth recipes archive
I believe
|
|
|
simplyaven
Grey Havens
Feb 15 2014, 4:30am
Post #108 of 113
(816 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm a woman and share his opinion
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I read Tolkien for what *Tolkien* wrote. While I do think Tolkien wrote very interesting female characters I am totally and absolutely against PJ's team inventions of Elvish Lara Crofts which the author himself never wrote. It is very simple for me. And I'm a woman. If I want to see Lara Croft or the vampire bride and her dealings, I'll go watch them. When I want to watch Middle Earth I want to watch Tolkien's writing on screen. I do welcome changes within certain limits to improve the flow because it's a different medium. But re-writing Tolkien? No. I don't need female Barbi fighting heroines wherever I go. In fact, it's such a cheap cliche!
P.S. Root for? Literary heroine? Well, I've never felt like "rooting for" one. Harmful? Tolkien's writing? You also need to understand that thousands of female Tolkien fans out there like Tolkien's works just as they are.
Middle earth recipes archive
I believe
|
|
|
EomundDaughter
Lorien
Feb 15 2014, 9:38pm
Post #110 of 113
(805 views)
Shortcut
|
to bring a female hero to the quest and I think they really gave her a great role...she seems as powerful and intelligent a fighter as Legolas and more sympathetic to the assaults on the world around the elves..
Since she actually cares what happens to the dwarves, Legolas follows her to defend them which is an interesting plot development. The only silly story line was Killi's romantic interest in Tauriel. Her character really did not need that motivation and she would have aided the dwarves anyway....The next film may show us why the story was developed on that line....We have to remember that in famous mythologies, the hero's death is inevitable and highly honored.
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Feb 16 2014, 5:35am
Post #111 of 113
(789 views)
Shortcut
|
that after getting the EE it will help push her back to the sidelines.
We do know that there was more filmed with Thranduil and Beorn both, and we have confirmation that more Beorn is in the EE. Tauriel was added as a demographic thing, so it's natural (in my mind) that if one were to add a character to appease the general demographic of the masses, then the TE will have said character's scenes in it, rather than the EE added scenes.
Not saying it's wrong to like her or hate her at all- it may have just been a demographics thing when the editing for the TE was done. One can hope the EE fixes or at least crowds out some things to put them in better perspective time wise. I seriously doubt they'd edit her out of the EE (no matter how you might wish for it- I personally liked her, surprisingly, as I thought I would hate her) but maybe things will feel more balanced in the EE.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Feb 20 2014, 6:29am
Post #112 of 113
(747 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Offering Context and emotional bandwidth
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Well said, characters do not exist in isolation it is how they react with others which creates the drama and their journey.
Kili and Tauriel from their first interaction with the other species (remember Kili at Rivendell) are curious and intrigued. The younger Legolas represents prejudice and his reaction to their dialogue is the typical reaction of a racially narrow-minded young, in this case, male. His father already has an axe to grind with his treatment and humiliation by Thror so Tauriel's less disciplined more free wheeling spirit gives the Wood Elves more emotional band width.
These films are so big even I find myself not seeing the subtleties and making knee jerk reactions to a particular character.
It is quite clear to me now now that PPF's have taken seriously the ambiguity inherent in Radagast (did he stay true or not which Tolkien reflected a good deal on) and shown that whilst he had retained his inherent sanctified power bequeathed on him in Aman the centuries long isolation in The Greenwood has taken its toll and he is suffering from something between forgetfulness and dementia. When I now view his journey, the bird poop/poor decoy/mushroom comments and tip of the tongue remarks they are not misplaced but they part of a cohesive whole telling the story of this Istari's particular and unique fall and the sacrifice that his Valinorian being has made.
Radagast, Tauriel and Azog, come to that, will all make a good deal more sense when their journeys end is revealed.
Would I have preferred Thrain's story (My DOS disappointment) to Tauriel no but tighter action scenes for Thrain Yes. However having watched a Thor movie in flight earlier this week I understand why the amplified action scenes are a necessary evil for a film that is whether we like it or not considered a block buster.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
EomundDaughter
Lorien
Mar 23 2014, 11:54am
Post #113 of 113
(760 views)
Shortcut
|
been taller as Tauriel...all the elves are at least six feet and the females close to it...
Lilly says she is 5'3" and I believe they had to try to film her taller which explains the very long hair...
she is a great actress but I guess they wanted the romance with Killi to seem more plausible..
|
|
|
|
|
