|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elthir
Hithlum
Jan 22 2014, 11:36am
Post #51 of 69
(556 views)
Shortcut
|
I've seen percentages before but my point was that Arwen's notable percentage of Elvish blood does not alter that Arwen is not simply an Elf.
But thanks in any case 
|
|
|
Rowan Greene
Menegroth
Jan 22 2014, 1:28pm
Post #52 of 69
(545 views)
Shortcut
|
,,,And, now you've done it: you've sparked some curiosity in me. How would you fix the problem of overshadowing the protagonist's story arc *without* giving them more screen time in proportion to other story arcs?
I believe I've said this numerous times but I would remove Tauriel and her story arc entirely. Period. The Hobbit is a quest and not a chase or a love story. I personally don't feel the character is necessary (as stated before)--I don't think TH was ever lacking in feminine energy. The magic is in its simplicity, IMO.
I have no problem with Legolas being in the movie because, a) he's a canon character created by Tolkien, b) he is Thranduil's son and would presumably have been there. If you remove Tauriel / her story arc, then we could have Legolas questioning his father's isolationist policies, chatting up Balin in the dungeon about their loss and their quest, curious about the outside realm, etc. There are many possibilities.
I simply didn't feel the need for any romantic/rebellious young Silvan elf subplot.
|
|
|
Rowan Greene
Menegroth
Jan 22 2014, 2:38pm
Post #53 of 69
(546 views)
Shortcut
|
Why would Thranduil be reduced to a cameo? Why would significant plot elements be lost? Are you suggesting Thranduil's role only exists because of Tauriel or that she's somehow essential for the story to work? None of these scenes would work without Thranduil but Tauriel is superfluous. IMO.
The Elvenking (subsequently named Thranduil by Tolkien) exists in the source material as created by Tolkien, whereas Tauriel is a fabricated character. If any elf should have been fleshed out and featured prominently in TH movies, it was Thranduil.
First, I said nothing about removing Legolas. I'm not sure where you got that. I suggested removing a story arc. Oh, and I'd be happy with the complete removal of the nonessential Tauriel character (as written).
a) Spider conversation: Why do we need Tauriel for this conversation? Legolas could speak to his father about the spiders. Legolas could inhabit her entire role (minus the romance) and bring his father's isolationist policies to light or to challenge him. Legolas is quite old--not to mention a Prince who has his father's ear--and surely he's encountered or heard about other races in his time and the perils facing ME.
b) There's no need to invent some pretext. I quite enjoyed watching Bilbo wander around Rivendell and in this case, he actually has a reason: he's looking for food and an escape route and he's bound to get lost or distracted. While doing so, Bilbo could be drawn in by the "less wise and more dangerous" woodland elves and observe the big feast (while stealing some food) or overhear conversations between Thranduil and his people much as he did in Rivendell. (Wonderinglinguist had a great suggestion with the Lindir equivalent. It makes perfect sense since Thranduil is a King after all.) So how is watching Bilbo formulate an escape plan not moving the plot forward? The dwarves are locked up and it's up to our hero to set them free so they can continue their quest. This was a great chance to infuse some Bilbo humor to include him almost getting caught. I'm not talking hours of footage but a matter of minutes. (I'm not sure how any of that would appear creepy. Speaking of creepy, you have seen the healing scene, right?)
c) Barrels out of Bond: Again, I said nothing about removing Legolas. I don't consider Legolas and Tauriel a package deal. One is canon, one is not. Legolas may not have been in the book but as Thranduil's son, it makes sense for him to be present. Legolas is capable of capturing an orc with another woodland elf. That entire scene could play out just fine without Tauriel's inclusion if Legolas were portrayed as questioning his father's policies. She's superfluous--the scene doesn't hinge on her inclusion. In fact, she was going to kill the orc but Legolas stopped her so they could question it. Any random elf could take her place.
d) The Feast of Starlight: I disagree. This scene is as much about Tauriel (and what drives her actions) as it is about Kili. If not, then I guess you'd be fine with Kili having the same chat with Legolas or another random elf? If it's not romantic in any way, then a male elf would suffice. (Of course, they'd have to adjust how Legolas was portrayed and that would be perfectly fine with me.)
My problem is that this scene focuses the attention onto one dwarf (as I stated previously) when there are others at stake, to include Fili who has also been overlooked thus far. Heck, Kili could have had this conversation with Fili in an adjoining cell for that matter, thus fleshing out both characters. Perhaps have Fili tell Kili he would make sure he kept his promise, no matter what. Legolas could overhear this conversation......
Yes, I do believe there is a "love story" and that it drives Tauriel's actions. It's also a matter of interpretation (and opinion) that a subplot has overshadowed the protagonist. When writing a book, one often weaves in one or two minor subplots but they should never take away from the main protagonist or his/her character arc or feel more prominent or of greater importance.
We have yet to see TABA so it could go one of two ways: the emphasis is placed back on the main protagonists (Bilbo and Thorin) where it belongs, or the non-canon character and her story arc will remain prominent and impact canon character decisions and fates.
I seem to recall a post where you explained how a friend loaned you the Lost DVDs and you saw Lilly climbing around some trees and thought she'd make a great elf. I also seem to recall that you greatly admire the actress. You were then thrilled to hear she'd been cast as Tauriel in TH movies. Where am I going with this? It seems to me that you would love the character regardless of her story arc and for that reason, we're going to have to just agree to disagree.
I personally would have accepted a female elf captain in a background role without an influential/prominent story arc--one that didn't impact canon character story arcs, decisions, behaviour, etc. And one that had no romantic connection to the King's son or a captured dwarf. A strong female who just got the job done.
If the Tauriel scenes in the Woodland Realm were erased, then Thranduil becomes nothing much more than a cameo, and very significant plot elements are potentially lost: - There would be no conversation with Tauriel about the spiders, and thus no revelation of Thranduil's isolationist policies. You would have to invent some pretext for Bilbo to observe Thranduil alone, which would not further the plot in any way and which might look rather creepy.
- Without Tauriel and Legolas the Dwarves wouldn't stand a chance against Bolg and the Orcs, so "Barrels out of Bond" has to be radically changed; thus there is no orc prisoner to be interrogated, and no reason for Thranduil to suspect that the power of Sauron may have risen again.
So instead of three scenes, Thranduil has only the one scene with Thorin, or you invent "something else" to give him more screen time. The reason why we don't see Bilbo do more sneaking around inside the Woodland Realm (which will probably be in the EE) is that it really doesn't further the plot in any way-- he notices the keys, the barrels, the Elves setting aside the keys and getting drunk, and that's enough for the TE. The "Feast of Starlight" scene has less to do with Tauriel than with Kili-- his character needs to be fleshed out, to foreshadow events that occur in TABA. Without this scene and referral to his mother Dis, he's just along for the ride, and his eventual fate has far less impact (as in the book). How can that small subplot overshadow the main plot? If you say that this was some sort of "romance", then that is your own interpretation, regardless of language that anyone has used in interviews and sound bites. The only thing that really counts toward criticism of the movie is the movie, right?
(This post was edited by Rowan Greene on Jan 22 2014, 2:39pm)
|
|
|
DwellerInDale
Nargothrond
Jan 22 2014, 3:01pm
Post #54 of 69
(530 views)
Shortcut
|
which Altaira has already asked but which you keep sidestepping: how does one relatively small subplot "overshadow" the main plot? It obviously can't be screen time. Bilbo and the Dwarves have something like 6-7 times as much screen time as Tauriel. So what is it? There are other small subplots in the film that don't exist in the book and that involve characters not in Tolkien: Bard vs. The Master + Alfrid is one such subplot. Why doesn't that overshadow the main plot as well?
Don't mess with my favorite female elf.
|
|
|
Rowan Greene
Menegroth
Jan 22 2014, 3:53pm
Post #55 of 69
(523 views)
Shortcut
|
I haven't "sidestepped" anything. Somehow I predict nothing I say is going to satisfy you (and that's not just because of your prominent signature pic with statement) but here goes--again:
I said in my opinion it overshadowed the protagonist by placing more emphasis (or importance) on the Tauriel/Kili subplot v. Bilbo / the dwarves and their quest. Bilbo and the dwarves in Beorn's house and in Mirkwood were essentially a blur, yet we slow down in Thranduil's halls and concentrate on the Kili/Tauriel interaction to a degree that it seemed to be the "primary" story arc--and she seemed to be more prominent a character than say Thorin or Bilbo--at least for me. It felt like we were at an all out sprint to reach this point of pushing Kili and Tauriel to the forefront so we could showcase their relationship....at the expense of integral characters (Bilbo literally vanished for quite some time and not just because he has the One Ring). I elaborated on this in my previous post. There was a noticeable shift from Bilbo/dwarves on a quest to Tauriel the rebellious elf and her fascination with Kili and the outside world. Again, this is all MY OPINION. In short: you have an ensemble cast and a group goal for the most part except during the Kili/Tauriel subplot where the focus shifts to two characters and their storyline. I felt if anyone was going to be the focal point it should have been a different character (Bilbo) and his goal--to get the dwarves out and to Erebor before time runs out. Of note, I have been speaking primarily to the Mirkwood/Thranduil's halls and related sequences within this thread. However, I have the same concerns for TABA.
Yes, it's a matter of opinion and perspective. I've spoken with a number of people who left the theater more concerned with what happens to Tauriel and Kili than they are about what happens to Thorin / Bilbo or if the dwarves take back their homeland. They've essentially lost the plot.
As for the Master/Bard/Alfrid subplot, this didn't take as much emphasis away from the quest, IMO, because it was part of the quest and it therefore moved the story forward--it moved the dwarves/Bilbo as a group one step closer to Erebor. In a sense, this subplot was more like a speed bump in their travels and not an exit ramp to a private tete-a-tete between Tauriel/Kili. We didn't have to leave the road to experience it. This subplot incorporates both our protagonist and the dwarves as a group and brings important Lake-towners into the fold as they will figure prominently in TABA and events surrounding the Bo5A.
With the exception of Alfrid, the other two are canon characters whose roles were at least based--however loosely--on the source material albeit more fleshed out. I personally didn't care for Bard being locked up (for no apparent reason) but I guess PJ wanted to make his "big moment" all the more challenging, as in the guy who has to take down the big bad has one more obstacle to overcome.
which Altaira has already asked but which you keep sidestepping: how does one relatively small subplot "overshadow" the main plot? It obviously can't be screen time. Bilbo and the Dwarves have something like 6-7 times as much screen time as Tauriel. So what is it? There are other small subplots in the film that don't exist in the book and that involve characters not in Tolkien: Bard vs. The Master + Alfrid is one such subplot. Why doesn't that overshadow the main plot as well?
(This post was edited by Rowan Greene on Jan 22 2014, 4:03pm)
|
|
|
wonderinglinguist
Menegroth
Jan 22 2014, 4:26pm
Post #56 of 69
(504 views)
Shortcut
|
was give reasons why your points could work. You were saying how silly/not plausible they would be, so I just pointed out that they weren't. Other than wishing Thranduil was a bigger character, I never said I would have done it one way or the other.
And I actually happen to like Tauriel as a character, so it would be nice if there were no jumping to conclusions. What I do dislike, however, is her relationship with Kili, for multiple reasons, so some of those scenes/circumstances I would have changed, but that's it. She can talk to Thranduil and Legolas all day long, I wouldn't care.
keep smiling
|
|
|
Noria
Hithlum
Jan 22 2014, 4:42pm
Post #58 of 69
(485 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I happen to like the healing scene
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but even if I didn't, I agree that it's wishful thinking that it or any other scene will be reshot or reedited (unless it is expanded in the EE).
PJ crafted the scene that way because that is how he wanted it to be. He made all the choices.
Also, there is certainly no consensus on it being a bad scene. A lot of people don't like it, a lot do like it and who should PJ listen to?
|
|
|
Rowan Greene
Menegroth
Jan 22 2014, 4:54pm
Post #59 of 69
(485 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I believe I added the caveat...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
..."IN MY OPINION" numerous times throughout my posts. And I used specific language to further support that my statements were based on my opinion and my perspective (ie., "felt" and "to me," etc.). That was intentional. 
A character can have the least amount of screen time or the smallest role and still overshadow the MC/protagonist in a book or a film. A lot has to do with emphasis, impact, and how that role/scene is presented and framed--along with audience/reader perception.
And it's worth pointing out again that to 'overshadow' (in this instance) means to: appear much more prominent or important than. That doesn't require more screen time...
I've said it before: I'm glad you thoroughly enjoyed the character and her story arc.
(This post was edited by Rowan Greene on Jan 22 2014, 5:05pm)
|
|
|
Eleniel
Dor-Lomin
Jan 22 2014, 5:48pm
Post #60 of 69
(469 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Excluding the Orcs, all the other characters in DoS were "obstacles" that were encountered...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
passed over, and left behind... except Tauriel (and, because of her, Legolas) who is now on the journey with Thorin & Company. That signifies a far greater amount of importance being placed on non-book characters. If Legolas and Tauriel had stayed in Mirkwood initially and only come to Erebor along with Thranduil that would have more than sufficient. As it is Tauriel's story arc looks as though it is clearly going to be entwined with Kili's in TABA, giving her a much higher profile than, for example Beorn, and, currently, Thranduil, who should be the major player for the Elves.
"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort
|
|
|
Altaira
Superuser
Jan 22 2014, 5:57pm
Post #61 of 69
(464 views)
Shortcut
|
I would remove Tauriel and her story arc entirely. Period
...thus, giving what you consider to be more important story arcs.... more screen time.
And, yes, I did read below where you explained that for you, even a short amount of screen time of a non-important story line can overshadow a more important story arc. But again, by default, removing even that short amount of screen time allotta more screen time to what you consider to be more important sub-plots. I don't know how one can get around that math.
In the end, though, I'm just continuing to try to make the point that comments about screen time aren't, and weren't, meant to be personal affronts to anyone. It's just one way to measure the importance given to certain sub-plots that happened to come up in the conversation. Nothing to raise one's blood pressure about.
Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.
"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower
"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase
|
|
|
Rowan Greene
Menegroth
Jan 22 2014, 6:29pm
Post #62 of 69
(458 views)
Shortcut
|
...thus removing what I deem to be an unnecessary character and her superfluous story arc.
My blood pressure is fine. I am however frustrated at being asked to repeatedly defend my position (ie., opinion) and point out that my initial quoted comment about certain story arcs overshadowing others had nothing to do with allotted screen time but rather impact and prominence.
I have to go and shovel snow now so I'm putting this to rest. 
I would remove Tauriel and her story arc entirely. Period ...thus, giving what you consider to be more important story arcs.... more screen time. And, yes, I did read below where you explained that for you, even a short amount of screen time of a non-important story line can overshadow a more important story arc. [ Actually, no, I didn't say that. RG ] But again, by default, removing even that short amount of screen time allotta more screen time to what you consider to be more important sub-plots. I don't know how one can get around that math. In the end, though, I'm just continuing to try to make the point that comments about screen time aren't, and weren't, meant to be personal affronts to anyone. It's just one way to measure the importance given to certain sub-plots that happened to come up in the conversation. Nothing to raise one's blood pressure about.
(This post was edited by Rowan Greene on Jan 22 2014, 6:31pm)
|
|
|
Altaira
Superuser
Jan 22 2014, 7:36pm
Post #63 of 69
(446 views)
Shortcut
|
I should have quoted you exactly:
A character can have the least amount of screen time or the smallest role and still overshadow the MC/protagonist in a book or a film
But, any way you look at it, if you remove the Tauriel/Kili story line, unless you cut the total running-time of the movie by that exact amount of time, it has to *add* screen time to something else, presumably what one considers a more important story line. Thus, while screen time may not factor into your POV, it's still a very valid measurement of story-line emphasis, undeserving of a sarcastic reply.
Speaking of measurement, I hope you're not too buried there!
Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.
"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower
"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase
|
|
|
Rowan Greene
Menegroth
Jan 22 2014, 8:47pm
Post #64 of 69
(431 views)
Shortcut
|
Thank you. Because your previous post took my statement out of context and thus altered its meaning. It was in response to DinD's post and I was speaking generally at that point and not with regards to a specific character or story arc.
I don't understand the fixation on the movie's total running time. One can delete scenes, characters, or subplots without adding additional ones. Writers do it all the time (speaking from personal experience).
I've thoroughly explained my position and there's nothing more to be said here. I feel sorry for that poor horse we have beaten to death here... 
I should have quoted you exactly:
A character can have the least amount of screen time or the smallest role and still overshadow the MC/protagonist in a book or a film
But, any way you look at it, if you remove the Tauriel/Kili story line, unless you cut the total running-time of the movie by that exact amount of time, it has to *add* screen time to something else, presumably what one considers a more important story line. Thus, while screen time may not factor into your POV, it's still a very valid measurement of story-line emphasis, undeserving of a sarcastic reply.
Speaking of measurement, I hope you're not too buried there!
|
|
|
patrickk
Nargothrond
Jan 22 2014, 9:03pm
Post #65 of 69
(421 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"Tauriel is a fabricated character" really??
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...as a captain of the guard which is in the book (sex not suggested). Neither the King or the Captain of the guard are named in the book, nor are they fleshed out. PJ has done it to both. It is just Tolkien named Thranduil much later on, but not the captain of the guard. In both cases their characters have been fleshed out and they have been given a bigger role. Much the same for many of the characters in the book, givne it is children's book they are fairly one dimensional
|
|
|
Eowyn of Penns Woods
Doriath
Jan 22 2014, 9:16pm
Post #66 of 69
(415 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I guess I haz a logic fail, too, then.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
To me, it still looks like an attempt to disprove a statement of the unquantifiable (or partially unquantifiable) solely by means of a quantitative measurement. The disagreement seems to be that some don't feel that it is unquantifiable (or at least partially unquantifiable), I guess. Or something. I can't brain right now with this headache. :/
**********************************
NABOUF
Not a TORns*b!
Certified Curmudgeon
Knitting Knerd
NARF: NWtS Chapter Member since June 17,2011
|
|
|
wonderinglinguist
Menegroth
Jan 22 2014, 10:55pm
Post #67 of 69
(393 views)
Shortcut
|
I think I see where the confusion is coming from. Hopefully I can explain it well and not make things worse!
What I believe Rowan means by a storyline overshadowing is not necessarily in the sense that it's featured longer or shorter on screen, but that by it's sheer existence it takes away from the total investment we can put toward another storyline.
Think of it as a pie chart (good ol' elementary school math paying off right here ). Consider that one pie equals the total amount of emotional investment ("care") you have for a movie. Each storyline, depending on its effect on you, will be a bigger or smaller "slice" of the pie. It will be different for each person depending on their personal response to the different stories. What Rowan is kinda getting at, I believe, is that by taking out one storyline (and not even adding anything new), you now have more investment space for another story, i.e. one or two other slices can now be bigger! Conversely, adding in new material/stories will create a whole new slice and, consequently, make some of the other ones smaller.
Does that even help? It makes sense in my head but sometimes it's hard to put things in words. I'm just trying to bring some clarity here. You can agree or disagree, obviously, but it's always helpful to understand where someone is coming from first, I think
Also, not saying this is the case here, but I would say that a story getting more total screen time doesn't necessarily equate to it coming off as more important or people caring about it more.
keep smiling
(This post was edited by wonderinglinguist on Jan 22 2014, 10:55pm)
|
|
|
Altaira
Superuser
Jan 23 2014, 12:06am
Post #68 of 69
(376 views)
Shortcut
|
..about what she's saying. Though I might not be as eloquent as you - I was trying to make the same point about proportions in my last post (as Homer Simpson would say... mmmmm, pie!). 
In summary (if I can do this without making things worse):
1) I understand that the mere existence of a certain story line can seem to overshadow the main story line, regardless of length. However...
2) I think the amount of time allotted to said story line (think, pie, mmmm..) is also a legitimate alternative to analyzing the issue (thus I was a little distressed by the defensiveness when that POV came up). As we all know, threads have a mind of their own sometimes and everyone should be allowed to throw their POVs in the pot without getting a snarky answer in return, especially when no offense was meant.
3) I think it's contradictory to offer elements of POV #2 as a solution for POV #1. Even you did it: you implied that (paraphrasing) a solution to having a story line not overshadowed is to change the size of the slice of pie. But, if the slice of pie = screen time, and you change it, it proves how intertwined and legitimate, POV #2 is to POV #1. In other words, one can't say that screen time has nothing to do with it (i.e., POV#2 is invalid), then offer more or less screen time as a solution (i.e., bigger or smaller pieces of pie).
It's a conundrum, really. I personally think they're so intertwined it's probably impossible to separate the two. But, my real point was that it should be okay for someone to propose POV#2 regardless of how much someone agrees, disagrees or think it relates to POV#1.
Whew! I've worked up an appetite - now I want pie!
Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.
"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower
"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase
|
|
|
|
|
