Tauriel

[Devor]

And I still stand by the point that having Gimli's attitude remain the way it was in the book would only add fluff, with someone like Frodo having to ask "What happened in Moria?", leading to giving the audience unnecessary information.

But anyway, this is on a tangent. But it does illustrate how changes need to be made in adaptations.

As a member of the audience, I'm only left confused by the whole thing. Why doesn't Frodo ask what's up with Moria when you have one person talking about a royal welcome and the other terrified? Especially when it becomes his job to pick ("Let the ring bearer decide."). The whole thing makes no sense and only creates confusion, and it doesn't make Gimli look like a very deep character. And a line or two about "Balin's efforts to reclaim Moria" wouldn't really be any more out of place than all the other worldbuilding that doesn't matter anywhere near as much.

I can drop it. Certainly films need to be adapted differently. But film makers can screw it up, too.

 

[Incanus]

Whenever there's a change from book to film, people need to really THINK about it before they complain. Ask themselves "why did they change that?" More often than not there's a perfectly logical reason. Film producers don't go out of their way to butcher an author's work.

This almost sounds like you're saying that all adaptions are inherently good. I've thought about all the changes and why I don't like them. Yes there are reasons that changes are made, but if they're done poorly or are unjustified, I'm not going to accept them.

I can't imagine what kind of logic goes into farting trolls, burping dwarves, or wizards blowing smoke out of their ears. Small items to be sure, but the producers went out of their way to include these things, resulting in butchering an author's work. I've read a lot of Tolkien, and a lot about Tolkien, and I think its safe to say that he would not approve of farting trolls. Not by a long shot.

Here are some adaptions that I think are far, far better:

To Kill a Mockingbird
Moby Dick (50's, Gregory Peck version)
Harry Potter 1 (I've only read the first book and can't comment on the others)
13th Warrior (aka: Eaters of the Dead)
Game of Thrones

 

[Steerpike]

The Gregory Peck version of Moby Dick is quite good. I hope you don't mean to say the adaptation is better than the book, however, because I consider that to be blasphemy

 

[Gryphos]

This almost sounds like you're saying that all adaptions are inherently good. I've thought about all the changes and why I don't like them. Yes there are reasons that changes are made, but if they're done poorly or are unjustified, I'm not going to accept them.

I can't imagine what kind of logic goes into farting trolls, burping dwarves, or wizards blowing smoke out of their ears. Small items to be sure, but the producers went out of their way to include these things, resulting in butchering an author's work. I've read a lot of Tolkien, and a lot about Tolkien, and I think its safe to say that he would not approve of farting trolls. Not by a long shot.

Naturally. That's why I said 'more often than not' and not 'always'. I'm not a fan of farting trolls either, or burping dwarves. But a key thing is that the reason I don't like them is not that they are different from the book, but because they are bad elements, full stop. Adaptations should by all means be criticised. I've done so many times. But criticise them as films, not as adaptations.

Because, in a way, adaptations don't exist. Books exist, and films exist. A film can be inspired by a book, tell the same story as the book, have the same title as the book. But it is not the book.

 

[Mindfire]

Is it only dudes who have a problem with Tauriel and only Tauriel?

I can understand if you say "I don't like the introduction of Tauriel, and I don't like changes 1, 2, 3....n they made to all the male characters, and all the other non-book stuff they introduced."

But if your position is "I can't stand Tauriel, but please apply excuse A, B, or C to all the male characters that have been introduced or changed" then it starts to look a bit odd.

I don't mind character changes so much as I mind the invention of characters from whole cloth. Couldn't they have dug a little deeper in the mythos and found a some female character they could adapt, even loosely, rather than just making one up? It's just a step too far for me. It doesn't ruin the movie, but still.

 

[Mindfire]

Ask themselves "why did they change that?" More often than not there's a perfectly logical reason. Film producers don't go out of their way to butcher an author's work.

Rebuttal: The entire Earthsea miniseries.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't mind character changes so much as I mind the invention of characters from whole cloth. Couldn't they have dug a little deeper in the mythos and found a some female character they could adapt, even loosely, rather than just making one up? It's just a step too far for me. It doesn't ruin the movie, but still.

They basically did adapt an existing character. The Captain of the Guard is in the book. That's who Tauriel is. They took the existing character, changed the sex and gave her a bigger role.

 

[Incanus]

The Gregory Peck version of Moby Dick is quite good. I hope you don't mean to say the adaptation is better than the book, however, because I consider that to be blasphemy

No blasphemy here! I only mean to say that these adaptions are good ones, not that they exceed their source. I almost want to say as a blanket statement that the book is always better.

But another curious case comes to mind: Kubrick's 'The Shining'--In my opinion he actually improved and refined the story. I read the book not long ago and was somewhat surprised; my expectation may have been a tad high. A crucial point though: expectation.

 

[Reaver]

My kids and I are still waiting for the movie adaptation of "Lorelei and the Lost and Found Monster" by the incomparable R. Scott Kimsey.

 

[Mindfire]

They basically did adapt an existing character. The Captain of the Guard is in the book. That's who Tauriel is. They took the existing character, changed the sex and gave her a bigger role.

Even if we accept that reasoning, her name is still terrible and fanfic-y and they should have picked a different one. They gave her a name Tolkien never invented and that just bugs me.

 

[Steerpike]

Even if we accept that reasoning, her name is still terrible and fanfic-y and they should have picked a different one. They gave her a name Tolkien never invented and that just bugs me.

Maybe not. The name is supposed to be Quenya, which is one of the languages Tolkien created. The suffix -iel appears in Tolkien's works, as the suffix for daughter. According to another work cataloging Quenya, and citing to the Silmarillion, among other works, Taure refers to "forest" or maybe "the great forest." I wasn't clear on which.

But the above certain jives with Peter Jackson's statement that the name is constructed from Tolkien's own language, Quenya, in which it basically translates to something like Daughter of the Forest.

If Taure- and -iel are both canon word parts, then Tauriel seems to work. I think it is just because the name is new. If Galadriel hadn't been in the books and was invented for the movie, that name would probably sound fan-ficy.

 

[Mindfire]

Maybe not. The name is supposed to be Quenya, which is one of the languages Tolkien created. The suffix -iel appears in Tolkien's works, as the suffix for daughter. According to another work cataloging Quenya, and citing to the Silmarillion, among other works, Taure refers to "forest" or maybe "the great forest." I wasn't clear on which.

But the above certain jives with Peter Jackson's statement that the name is constructed from Tolkien's own language, Quenya, in which it basically translates to something like Daughter of the Forest.

If Taure- and -iel are both canon word parts, then Tauriel seems to work. I think it is just because the name is new. If Galadriel hadn't been in the books and was invented for the movie, that name would probably sound fan-ficy.

I don't know why, but I can't shake the Elder Scrolls feeling I get from "Tauriel". I would have preferred if they had just repurposed a name that Tolkien made. Consider: suppose they named the character Luthien? She wouldn't be the Luthien, of course, but they could have added in some lines about her being named after the first Luthien. Maybe give a mention to the story of Beren and Luthien, thus paving the way for the inevitable Silmarillion adaptation. Just saying. That would have been awesome.

 

[Fyle]

Is it only dudes who have a problem with Tauriel and only Tauriel?

I can understand if you say "I don't like the introduction of Tauriel, and I don't like changes 1, 2, 3....n they made to all the male characters, and all the other non-book stuff they introduced."

But if your position is "I can't stand Tauriel, but please apply excuse A, B, or C to all the male characters that have been introduced or changed" then it starts to look a bit odd.

Steerpike, I listed female characters to prove the best I could that it is not about her being female per se, it is more about her not being an original character and playing no role in the Hobbit or Tolkiens world.

I did mention Legolas, and he does he more of a pass since he is an original creation of Tolkien. This is a slightly different topic, as Legolas was shuffled around not invented by Peter Jackson. ( I did mention him in the origonal post ).

Tauriel is NOT a female character like Trinity, Arya Stark or Brienne who was put in the story as players to enhance the world and bring he story to life. She was placed in deliberately because there were not enough females, which is what makes her such a stain.

As I said, she insults female characters more by being a "babe" thrown in to sell tickets. Why wasn't she rugged and harden by battle? Big and ugly like Brienne? Because they wanted a "hot chick" cause that's what's in. Therefore to sell tickets using the LOTR name. If she was an obnoxious male elf side kick to Legolas it would be almost as bad; perhaps slightly less sell out. I'm on my iPhone so, I will respond in more detail later...

 

[Ireth]

I don't know why, but I can't shake the Elder Scrolls feeling I get from "Tauriel". I would have preferred if they had just repurposed a name that Tolkien made. Consider: suppose they named the character Luthien? She wouldn't be the Luthien, of course, but they could have added in some lines about her being named after the first Luthien. Maybe give a mention to the story of Beren and Luthien, thus paving the way for the inevitable Silmarillion adaptation. Just saying. That would have been awesome.

From what I've seen throughout the books, elves don't tend to reuse names, so naming someone after Luthien would be highly unlikely. Heck, even Arwen, who is said to be like Luthien reincarnated (which makes sense, seeing as Luthien is Arwen's great-great-grandmother), has her own name and not that of her foremother. To give such a renowned name to an elf with no relation at all to the original Luthien or her family strikes me as very strange.

 

[Gryphos]

Tauriel is NOT a female character like Trinity, Arya Stark or Brienne who was put in the story as players to enhance the world and bring he story to life. She was placed in deliberately because there were not enough females, which is what makes her such a stain.

And I'll repeat what I said in my first post. What's so wrong with that? Would people complain about her being 'shoehorned' in if it was Tolkien who originally put in her character?

 

[Mindfire]

From what I've seen throughout the books, elves don't tend to reuse names, so naming someone after Luthien would be highly unlikely. Heck, even Arwen, who is said to be like Luthien reincarnated (which makes sense, seeing as Luthien is Arwen's great-great-grandmother), has her own name and not that of her foremother. To give such a renowned name to an elf with no relation at all to the original Luthien or her family strikes me as very strange.

Okay, so not a perfect solution. But I still want my Silmarillion adaptation!

 

[Steerpike]

I did mention Legolas, and he does he more of a pass since he is an original creation of Tolkien. This is a slightly different topic, as Legolas was shuffled around not invented by Peter Jackson. ( I did mention him in the origonal post ).

Legolas is nowhere to be found in the Hobbit. At least the Captain of the guard is in the book, albeit briefly. Legolas was just thrown into this story because he's popular, and he's played by Orlando Bloom, who many women find attractive. He's there for you to like. Sounds a lot like the rationale you propose for Tauriel

 

[Incanus]

And I'll repeat what I said in my first post. What's so wrong with that? Would people complain about her being 'shoehorned' in if it was Tolkien who originally put in her character?

If he had included the character, it wouldn't have been 'shoe-horned'. He had far more natural talent than Peter Jackson and didn't care one whit about demographics, reaching a the widest audience possible, or literary trends. He was a true artist. So yes, everything is wrong with it.

 

[Mindfire]

And I'll repeat what I said in my first post. What's so wrong with that? Would people complain about her being 'shoehorned' in if it was Tolkien who originally put in her character?

I wouldn't. Legolas was never in the Hobbit at all, and neither were Galadriel or Radagast that I remember. But since they're Tolkien characters with Tolkien names, I'm fine with it.

 

[Jabrosky]

I didn't have a problem with Tauriel. I did get the sense that she wasn't present in the original Tolkien version, but then Tolkien grew up in a time with a different sociopolitical climate from ours. Sexism, racism, and other ideologies we consider oppressive today represented mainstream thought back in Tolkien's day. I don't see why a 21st-centurty revision of his work needs to inherit his antiquated prejudices about gender. It's not like Middle Earth is an accurate portrayal of any period in real human history anyway.

Mind you, I'm not the kind of social-justice blogger who would demand that a female warrior be shoehorned into every story, but if the storyteller (which in this case is Jackson, as Tolkien is dead) genuinely wants to include her, I don't have a problem with that.

As for the attractiveness angle, she's an elf. Tolkien elves are supposed to be stereotypically beautiful (at least by Northern European standards).