|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elanor of Rohan
Lorien
Jun 20 2014, 7:47pm
Post #26 of 39
(298 views)
Shortcut
|
female in this case, despite all the flaws.
I'm not a fan of changing genders in general.
In this particular case, the theme of the nephews dying to defend their mother's brother is so important and such a homage to Norse culture and literature that it becomes impossible to modify.
Middle Earth culture (and Dwarf culture) takes inspiration from ancient (Norse, Finnish, Anglo-Saxon) literature and mythology and in that specific contest it is not weird to have an all-male company.
Therefore, if a modern audience feels the need to have a more important female presence in the storylines, it is better to create new suitable characters than switching genders.
By the way I agree that this could be interesting if we were talking about a stage production, which wants to experiment and create a new way of telling a traditional story with different means.
And... on a lighter note
we would have lost Aidan Turner and Dean O'Gorman ...
|
|
|
Elarie
Grey Havens
Jun 20 2014, 8:58pm
Post #27 of 39
(278 views)
Shortcut
|
in reply to: "In no way is The Hobbit a story that is about or dependent on male gender. It just happens to involve dwarves which are androgynous to the human eye. I don't see a point in arguing about it. By the design of the dwarves themselves, it isn't something that would be important."
_____
it was important to Tolkien.
And once again the world has not arranged itself just for me.
|
|
|
IdrilofGondolin
Rohan
Jun 20 2014, 10:25pm
Post #28 of 39
(268 views)
Shortcut
|
Tolkien was very clear that dwarves are highly protective of their women. They are jealous, Tolkien writes, as in all matters of their possessions. And that is pretty much a direct quote, so you see how Tolkien wanted us to understand dwarf women I relation to the males. He also tells us that there were far fewer dwarf women, perhaps less than a third of the population. Some dwarf women did not marry and that is why the kind of the dwarves grew slowly as a population and why being without a home was so upsetting to them. Dwarf women travelled seldom and did so in disguise.
It is all very interesting. And if one is following Tolkien's lead means that there could not be any female dwarves in the company.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Jun 20 2014, 11:52pm
Post #29 of 39
(256 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Culture in Middle Earth and in our own world.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As has been said above, the culture of Tolkien’s dwarves would likely not have been accepting of female adventurers and warriors. Also, in PJ’s Middle Earth, specifically Dale, the female dwarves seemed fairly girly, despite their facial hair.
At the time Tolkien was writing, a company of males pursuing a mission in a book or in real life would be the norm and the inclusion of a female like Eowyn an anomaly (as it is in the book). War and adventures were for men.
As a very longtime reader of fantasy and science fiction, I grew up with stories in which women were usually trophies, victims, followers or supporters, like book Arwen. Not always, but usually. That was the way it was and I was used to it. Someone like Eowyn was a refreshing change and I was always very happy to meet a strong female protagonist. Thankfully times have changed and women think of themselves differently and have different expectations of literature, cinema etc.
I too would rather have a new female character than mess with the existing ones, especially after PJ went to so much trouble to make all the dwarves individuals. So for me it works well to include a female character like Tauriel. She has a pivotal role in the plot, she has intelligence, gravitas and strength. They could have sexualized her or made her a victim or a trophy but they didn't. (The wimpy little romance they have created is minor IMO.) Tauriel didn't have to be a badass warrior but it gets her out and about and personally I like it.
|
|
|
marillaraina
Rohan
Jun 20 2014, 11:52pm
Post #30 of 39
(256 views)
Shortcut
|
Just because a movie is almost all male, doesn't mean women can't like it. There shouldn't need to be a strong female role as a prerequisite for obtaining a female audiance. Plus, I think very strong female roles in movies like this get very old and cliché very fast.
Actually this is precisely part of the problem. Women DON'T need female characters to identify with. It's been proven time and time again, women have no trouble identifying with both male and female characters. Not that sometimes it isn't nice to have a woman in there(and in fact more often than not a female character is added not for the women but to give guys some eye candy)
It's MEN who seem to have issues identifying with female characters.(And before anyone says "not me!!!", if not you then it's not you I'm talking about, but this is a proven fact, shown by study after study) THAT ultimately is the reason why so films in general are so "male heavy". (It's also why JK Rowling had to change her name to something gender neutral - it didn't matter after it was a phenomenon but before that it did)
Despite the fact that men make up less than 50% of the population in most of the developed world, characters in films(this includes background characters, this includes "space fillers") are overwhelmingly portrayed as male. I can't remember the exact percentages but for some reason I think it may be as high as 70%.
Those films listed by the poster which are "female focused" are by far the exception. (even in films that throw in a couple of females, those females often rarely speak to each other and if they do, it's often focused on their relationship with a male character).
So in fact it's probably more important to add females to films because of men and starting to change the culture to get men used to the idea than it is for women. The more women characters are put out there eventually the more like women men will likely become in their ability to identify with both male and female characters.
There is simply no excuse in this day and age for the "default" character to be male or the for the disparity to be that high.
Now for me it doesn't matter one or the other, I have no issues with all male films or mostly all male films or books of whatever, but I'm a woman and women usually don't.
(This post was edited by marillaraina on Jun 20 2014, 11:58pm)
|
|
|
marillaraina
Rohan
Jun 21 2014, 12:14am
Post #31 of 39
(251 views)
Shortcut
|
Just because a movie is almost all male, doesn't mean women can't like it. There shouldn't need to be a strong female role as a prerequisite for obtaining a female audiance. Plus, I think very strong female roles in movies like this get very old and cliché very fast. I almost forgot. Given that the great majority of roles in films and lead roles go to males, do strong male get "old fast"? And are cliche? Because there are TONS of male characters who are written pretty much just like Tauriel. She is pretty much written as the what I'll call the juvenile lead - the young idealistic hero with a bit of romance tossed in(heck in some ways she even has similarities to Aragorn). In fact Kili is probably written more as the female "damsel in distress" in the context of their relationship(though he does have more going on than that and more than most female characters in a similar positions would)
|
|
|
Name
Rohan
Jun 21 2014, 12:20am
Post #32 of 39
(251 views)
Shortcut
|
But Tauriel has no backstory and there isn't as much emotional investment as there is in say Thorin or Aragorn. Usually these strong female roles are shoehorned in. That's why it can be kinda cheesy.
How many Tolkien fans does it take to change a light bulb?
"Change? Oh my god, what do you mean change?! Never, never, never......"
|
|
|
marillaraina
Rohan
Jun 21 2014, 2:37am
Post #33 of 39
(235 views)
Shortcut
|
But Tauriel has no backstory and there isn't as much emotional investment as there is in say Thorin or Aragorn. Usually these strong female roles are shoehorned in. That's why it can be kinda cheesy.
Yeah but there are plenty of male characters that are the same way. Little to no backstory(I don't see why she needs a backstory, what backstory did Legolas have in the first films-now of course he had one from the books but I'm looking at this at this moment from a purely film perspective, but to be honest, even if someone JUST read the Lord of the Rings(and plenty of people read it and don't bother with the appendices), frankly he doesn't have much of a backstory. He's mainly just there to represent the elves and have his story in the present time, without much of a backstory for himself.
Why can't Tauriel be the same? Why does she need some "backstory"? Why was Legolas just being an elf backstory enough for most people who were content to just let him exist in the present time?
I think a lot of general audience people(which is most of the audience) probably care about Tauriel as much as any of the other characters.
Heck what are Fili and Kili's backstories really? They are Thorin's heirs but what else do we know about them? Pretty much nothing from the books. In fact in the first film, it was never mentioned they were related to Thorin. We just had the general idea they are dwarves and have a general sort of dwarvent experience in the same way we now know that Tauriel has a sort of general wood elf experience. They've been fleshed out for the films and are more well rounded characters.
Now I think you are probably talking about the fact that these characters always existed so they aren't being "shoe horned" in, whereas Tauriel is a new creation but in terms of what she is, she's not any different. She is no more "cliche" than the many similar male characters that exist.
She comes across as believably elven to me, if not as grand as the elves we met in LOTR, and the way she articulates her beliefs is fitting for an elven view point, she wants to be a steward for Middle Earth, to protect what is good on it, which is exactly what elves are supposed to do. I rather imagine Galadriel would probably quite like her to be honest.
|
|
|
Name
Rohan
Jun 21 2014, 2:52am
Post #34 of 39
(228 views)
Shortcut
|
And I am in no way trying to be sexist, just to clear that up.
I think the problem lies in gender roles. Stereotypically, men are portrayed as these tough fighters in movies. That's how they've been used and people are used to that. When directors try to put females into that role, I think it can easily come across as cheesy. And yes, having that character have little background plays into it. Where as men I think can pull it off without much background because yes, like it or not, they are men. That's not to say it's impossible. Many times these female characters can be pulled off. And yes, I think Tauriel was pretty effective.
How many Tolkien fans does it take to change a light bulb?
"Change? Oh my god, what do you mean change?! Never, never, never......"
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Jun 21 2014, 3:29am
Post #35 of 39
(238 views)
Shortcut
|
For myself, it was one of the more difficult statements of Boyen's to process - the "feminine energy" comment. Because one way it could be taken, at face value, is that she, as a scriptwriter, and PJ & co., had taken it upon themselves to make a type of political statement of sorts within a major movie production based on a classic work which happens to be male dominated.
Well, OK, but if you are going to do that there are any number of elements about Tauriel's characterization I would have changed. As it it is, I can't shake off the feeling that basically PJ & co. wanted a YOUNG female heroine in there, a.k.a. Arwen, and some romance, just because that's what they wanted to do. Which is fine if you are making the movie, it's your film, but don't try to suggest, possibly, that this was righting some kind of wrong of Tolkien's world building. I've never known how to take that statement, it could have been an idly casual comment.
"Actually this is precisely part of the problem. Women DON'T need female characters to identify with. It's been proven time and time again, women have no trouble identifying with both male and female characters. Not that sometimes it isn't nice to have a woman in there(and in fact more often than not a female character is added not for the women but to give guys some eye candy)"
Too true. And also agree re the OP with posts that suggest as a theater or experimental work, Fili and Kili could have been female - hey, make all of the dwarves female, especially Thorin. There's precedent for infuriated females in history leading the charge. But for me it's too deeply imbedded, here and now, however they look in the film, Bilbo is MALE, the dwarves are MALES, in leather boots and cloaks and swords.
|
|
|
Vepariga
The Shire
Jun 21 2014, 3:43pm
Post #36 of 39
(210 views)
Shortcut
|
I loved Tauriel, She was a good inclusion. The implyed 'love' scenes between Kili and her though could have been handled better,they seem abit forced and tacky but I can easily overlook.
As for the idea of possible main cast being swapped for women I'd be quite against, It would be a huge disservice to fans and readers that have grown and loved the characters how they had been intended to be. I think todays society seems to blow certian ideals out of proportion at times and in turn demand silly things that dont really move any agenda along in a huge way.
I'm glad Tauriel was included,so we can have our characters how they where created.
- Vep - Guardsman of the woodland realm of Mirkwood -
|
|
|
joec_34
Rivendell
Jun 23 2014, 12:56pm
Post #38 of 39
(156 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Insignificant, but fun to think about.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
To my mind, it makes little difference what the genders were. I totally agree, but it sure is fun to think about!
"Happy painting and God bless, my friend." - Bob Ross
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Jun 23 2014, 1:18pm
Post #39 of 39
(175 views)
Shortcut
|
While I am wholly surprised that I wasn't the first to try 'Dis and Dat' as a post title, someone did note the note I noted.
But firstly, "named in these histories" can be read as saying Dis is the only dwarf 'revealed' to be a woman. Why is Tolkien choosing to be coy? Then notice that most Thorin's company are NOT named in the Tolkien's HISTORY on Durin's Folk, but are only mentoned in a footnote to the family tree of Durin's Line. At this point, one might begin to wonder if the good Professor is putting us on.
I'm not sure this person is being serious, actually, but if so...
... I disagree that Tolkien is choosing to be coy in this text, as I find this idea [revealed as a woman] a somewhat 'tortured' interpretation.
But then to try and split hairs between 'named' in the 'history' and 'mentioned in a footnote' [in which their names actually appear, moreover] is going even more in the way of 'too far' in my opinion.
For myself, I do not begin to wonder if Tolkien is putting us on; rather I think he is putting us exactly where he rightly assumes we should be.
(This post was edited by Elthir on Jun 23 2014, 1:26pm)
|
|
|
|
|
