Tauriel

[Gryphos]

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.

THANK YOU. One of the basic things I feel the disparity in opinion comes from is that some people don't understand or don't agree with the fact that the Hobbit films are not Tolkien's story. In this case the artist is Peter Jackson, and he has every right to change Tolkien's story in order to adapt it. In this case one of those changes is to update it for modern audiences by adding a more diverse cast of characters, taking this opportunity by expanding the role of the Captain of the Guard and making them a woman.

 

[Devor]

THANK YOU. One of the basic things I feel the disparity in opinion comes from is that some people don't understand or don't agree with the fact that the Hobbit films are not Tolkien's story. In this case the artist is Peter Jackson, and he has every right to change Tolkien's story in order to adapt it. In this case one of those changes is to update it for modern audiences by adding a more diverse cast of characters, taking this opportunity by expanding the role of the Captain of the Guard and making them a woman.

Changing something in an existing, completed story isn't a simple matter. The "laws" of story structure require that even a small change is going to have a ripple effect throughout the book. Adding Tauriel to the movies had a number of effects on the story, and not all of them were good.

I don't really have a comment on how much diversity should impact these decisions. But it's a meta consideration. It's outside or above the story. And Tauriel was added for the meta-consideration, and not for the needs of the story itself. And that happens all the time, and maybe that's okay. But I think Tauriel fell into some of the common pitfalls which you risk when you put the meta-consideration ahead of the story. For instance, she was added to be a woman, and so all of her motivations were about her being a woman. And they felt too prominent and out of place. Her role as "captain of the guard" became secondary.

If they wanted to add a female, they should've stopped with the words "Okay, let's expand the captain of the guard and make the character a woman. Now what does that do to our story?" Instead they carried her gender at the surface throughout the movie. And it felt weird.

 

[Incanus]

the fact that the Hobbit films are not Tolkien's story.

Now that's a curious statement. I'm scratching my head in perplexity. The Hobbit is Tolkien's story. That's a fact. Peter Jackson, or anyone else is welcome to film any non-Tolkien story they want. But they can't have it both ways If it's not a Tolkien story then don't call it J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit.

But I suppose in another sense I have to agree: The Hobbit films are certainly not any story that Tolkien wrote.

 

[Gryphos]

If it's not a Tolkien story then don't call it J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit.

If I'm not mistaken, in the credits it says something like "based on the novel by J.R.R Tolkien", the words 'based on' being key.

 

[Incanus]

If I'm not mistaken, in the credits it says something like "based on the novel by J.R.R Tolkien", the words 'based on' being key.

I'm sure that that is true, but it changes nothing--the packaging clearly states 'The Hobbit' but the contents are clearly not 'The Hobbit' (or largely not; I suppose there is a tiny bit here and there).

Also, Devor is making a great deal of sense here--and a point well worth repeating: changes to a story have rippling effects on the entire structure. There have been so many major and minor changes, that the two 'versions' now bear only a passing resemblance.

 

[Jabrosky]

I'm sure that that is true, but it changes nothing--the packaging clearly states 'The Hobbit' but the contents are clearly not 'The Hobbit' (or largely not; I suppose there is a tiny bit here and there).

Also, Devor is making a great deal of sense here--and a point well worth repeating: changes to a story have rippling effects on the entire structure. There have been so many major and minor changes, that the two 'versions' now bear only a passing resemblance.

Faithfulness to Tolkien's vision might make sense if Tolkien were still around to voice an opinion either way on Jackson's revision. I certainly wouldn't want to offend a living writer I was paying homage to. Thing is, Tolkien has ceased to be. Until someone invents the necromantic technology to bring him back to life, we can only speculate how he would have reacted to any movie based on his writing. For all intents and purposes, this is Jackson's movie even if he does draw from a dead writer's mythos.

Besides, I seriously doubt it's possible to adapt any book into a movie without "rippling" the story to various degrees. Especially not a book as thick and ancient as Tolkien's tomes. Jackson's adaptations are challenging enough to sit through without including every single thing Tolkien wrote.

Maybe we would all be happy if one of the established characters from the original Hobbit was gender-bent instead? Like, maybe a female version of the dwarves' leader?

 

[Gryphos]

Maybe we would all be happy if one of the established characters from the original Hobbit was gender-bent instead? Like, maybe a female version of the dwarves' leader?

Well, as has already been discussed, Tauriel is the Captain of the Guard from the book, genderswapped, named and expanded.

 

[Jabrosky]

Well, as has already been discussed, Tauriel is the Captain of the Guard from the book, genderswapped, named and expanded.

That may be true, but I'm guessing it is this expansion of a minor character's role that's driving the ripple complaints. I was thinking, if a character who was already of major importance got gender-swapped, that might minimize the story-rippling.

 

[Ruby]

Changing something in an existing, completed story isn't a simple matter. The "laws" of story structure require that even a small change is going to have a ripple effect throughout the book. Adding Tauriel to the movies had a number of effects on the story, and not all of them were good.

As soon as I heard that The Hobbit was going to be THREE films, I knew something strange was going to happen. How could such a short book be made into THREE films? The answer is: by rewriting the plot, adding characters such as the token female, Tauriel, and dragging out the fight scenes to pad out the movies.

I've seen both of the films at the cinema. I watched the second one with three other adults. Two of us love Tolkien the other two have read his books but are fairly indifferent to them. I've read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit multiple times and consider these to be my favourite books. All four of us hated the second film: it was too long; it altered the plot beyond recognition; it was boring; it didn't resolve anything as it's the middle film of a trilogy; it introduced a female elf who doesn't exist in the book.

Worst of all, it turned the plot into a love story between the token female elf and one of the dwarfs. He nearly dies and has to wait for her to appear and give him some herbs to save his life.

It's never bothered me that The Hobbit is not a love story or that there are hardly any female characters in it. There are plenty of other books one could read for that!

 

[Jabrosky]

As soon as I heard that The Hobbit was going to be THREE films, I knew something strange was going to happen. How could such a short book be made into THREE films? The answer is: by rewriting the plot, adding characters such as the token female, Tauriel, and dragging out the fight scenes to pad out the movies.

I've seen both of the films at the cinema. I watched the second one with three other adults. Two of us love Tolkien the other two have read his books but are fairly indifferent to them. I've read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit multiple times and consider these to be my favourite books. All four of us hated the second film: it was too long; it altered the plot beyond recognition; it was boring; it didn't resolve anything as it's the middle film of a trilogy; it introduced a female elf who doesn't exist in the book.

Worst of all, it turned the plot into a love story between the token female elf and one of the dwarfs. He nearly dies and has to wait for her to appear and give him some herbs to save his life.

It's never bothered me that The Hobbit is not a love story or that there are hardly any female characters in it. There are plenty of other books one could read for that!

Whoah, I had no idea that Jackson took that many liberties with The Hobbit. I had taken my stance without any familiarity with the story beyond Jackson's movie, but it sounds like I would feel a lot differently had I approached the movie from the perspective of a Tolkien fan. I feel totally sheepish now.

Maybe Jackson shouldn't have billed his new trilogy as a faithful adaptation of The Hobbit?

 

[Gryphos]

I've seen both of the films at the cinema. I watched the second one with three other adults. Two of us love Tolkien the other two have read his books but are fairly indifferent to them. I've read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit multiple times and consider these to be my favourite books. All four of us hated the second film: it was too long; it altered the plot beyond recognition; it was boring; it didn't resolve anything as it's the middle film of a trilogy; it introduced a female elf who doesn't exist in the book.

Now, pretend for a second that the book never existed. How was the film? Of course it still has flaws as a film, but I'm inclined to think a lot of people wouldn't be complaining as much.

It's not as if Jackson's Hobbit is replacing Tolkien's. Tolkien purists will always have the book, it ain't going anywhere. But now we have multiple versions of the story for people to enjoy, with different artistic tones. How is that not a good thing?

 

[Ruby]

Now, pretend for a second that the book never existed. How was the film? Of course it still has flaws as a film, but I'm inclined to think a lot of people wouldn't be complaining as much.

It's not as if Jackson's Hobbit is replacing Tolkien's. Tolkien purists will always have the book, it ain't going anywhere. But now we have multiple versions of the story for people to enjoy, with different artistic tones. How is that not a good thing?

Hi Gryphos,

Why do you suggest we pretend that the book never existed? The whole point is that the film is marketed as The Hobbit, not Tauriel Meets The Hobbit/ The Hobbit and the Dwarf.

To be honest, we only went to see it as it was The Hobbit. We feel a bit ripped off that we have to watch three films and wait until next Xmas for the third and final part. As one of my friends said, "What's the point of viewing a film where you have to wait another year before you can find out how it ends?"

I can understand The Lord of the Rings being three separate films but The Hobbit is a fairly short book.

 

[Gryphos]

Why do you suggest we pretend that the book never existed? The whole point is that the film is marketed as The Hobbit, not Tauriel Meets The Hobbit/ The Hobbit and the Dwarf.

I'm not saying pretend the book never existed. I'm saying people shouldn't waste time comparing the two, because they are completely separate entities and should be judged on their own merits. It's the difference between saying "I hate Tauriel because she wasn't in the book" and "I hate Tauriel because her character was unnecessary to the story".

And as to the film's branding as The Hobbit. However much people like to joke and exaggerate how different the film is, it is still the Hobbit. It still has a hobbit called Bilbo go on a journey with thirteen dwarves and a wizard across Middle Earth to get to a mountain called Erebor, where there is a dragon called Smaug. They still encounter trolls, goblins, wargs, spiders and elves. Bilbo still meets Gollum in the Misty Mountains and still has a game of riddles. They still meet a shapeshifter called Beorn. They still get attacked by spiders. They still get captured by elves and escape down the river in barrels. Bilbo still enters Erebor and has a conversation with Smaug.

Yes, of course, as adaptations go, these films have changed more than adaptations usually do. But to call the films anything other than The Hobbit would basically be a lie.

As to the idea of people feeling betrayed that they ended up not seeing a completely faithful adaptation. After years and years of such adaptations, I feel as though people should have caught on by this point and learned to expect change. That's how I went into seeing the first Hobbit film, and I had a much better experience for it.

 

[Fyle]

I'm not saying pretend the book never existed. I'm saying people shouldn't waste time comparing the two, because they are completely separate entities and should be judged on their own merits. It's the difference between saying "I hate Tauriel because she wasn't in the book" and "I hate Tauriel because her character was unnecessary to the story".

And as to the film's branding as The Hobbit. However much people like to joke and exaggerate how different the film is, it is still the Hobbit. It still has a hobbit called Bilbo go on a journey with thirteen dwarves and a wizard across Middle Earth to get to a mountain called Erebor, where there is a dragon called Smaug. They still encounter trolls, goblins, wargs, spiders and elves. Bilbo still meets Gollum in the Misty Mountains and still has a game of riddles. They still meet a shapeshifter called Beorn. They still get attacked by spiders. They still get captured by elves and escape down the river in barrels. Bilbo still enters Erebor and has a conversation with Smaug.

Yes, of course, as adaptations go, these films have changed more than adaptations usually do. But to call the films anything other than The Hobbit would basically be a lie.

As to the idea of people feeling betrayed that they ended up not seeing a completely faithful adaptation. After years and years of such adaptations, I feel as though people should have caught on by this point and learned to expect change. That's how I went into seeing the first Hobbit film, and I had a much better experience for it.

Okay. Here's the thing... sure, I can watch it as a movie and kind of "let it go." BUT, the thing that keeps me agonizing over sell out, out of place add ons like Tauriel is that I can imagine how good the movie would be if they had stuck to the book. I cannot get that image out of my head of the beautiful movie they could have created had they stuck to the events and characters of the classics which became classics because they had the characters they did and no more no less.

I don't feel betrayed, I feel MUCH worse than that. I feel like they missed this one chance to make the Hobbit into a great movie. Sure, maybe someone will remake it but, who knows.

The movie aside from Tauriel had some terrible scenes (such as Legolas jumping on dwarves heads like Super Mario), but, she was the worst by far.

 

[Noma Galway]

Coming in late on the "what if a major character was genderswapped"...

I prefer having Tauriel, even with the weird love story thing going on. Switching a dwarf would make even less sense to me than expanding the Captain of the Guard.

 

[Gryphos]

Okay. Here's the thing... sure, I can watch it as a movie and kind of "let it go." BUT, the thing that keeps me agonizing over sell out, out of place add ons like Tauriel is that I can imagine how good the movie would be if they had stuck to the book. I cannot get that image out of my head of the beautiful movie they could have created had they stuck to the events and characters of the classics which became classics because they had the characters they did and no more no less.

And that is perfectly acceptable, to be rather disappointed by a movie compared to what it could have been. I've felt that way about several films, as well as games.

However, I do have to somewhat disagree with the idea that the films would be better if nothing was changed. This comes down to the fundamental differences between the mediums of books and films. Had the films stuck to the book exactly, you'd have to keep Gandalf suddenly leaving just before Mirkwood with no explanation, only to have him reappear suddenly just before the climax and go "sorry, I was just busy taking care of the Necromancer." I don't know about you, but I think that would absolutely suck. You'd also have the character of Bard, an extremely important character who takes out the story's main antagonist, introduced five minutes before doing so.

And, I'm sorry, but I think it's about time people really looked at The Hobbit and realised that perhaps it's just not as good as people hold it to be. It's a classic piece of literature, that's for sure, something that should be studied for its influence on the fantasy genre, and it probably does make great bedtime reading for children. But... half its characters aren't developed (Tolkien needed to use hood colours to even distinguish them for god's sake), others are so rushed in their introduction, and Smaug's end is anticlimactic.

Now, I do like The Hobbit book for its pure fantastical elements, and I respect it for its profound influence on the fantasy genre from then onwards. But I just cannot see it working as a film if it was followed exactly.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

If I'm not mistaken, in the credits it says something like "based on the novel by J.R.R Tolkien", the words 'based on' being key.

The "based on" statement implies the filmmaker has a right to change the story.

The fact there's a huge discussion demonstrates the "risk" you take: major changes alienate the fans.

That alienation doesn't stop The Hobbit from being a big money-maker, and while I doubt I'll see it (because it's a 10-hour commitment and my wife's not into it), I know I won't stop watching GoT because of the controversial changes. I still bought Star Wars DVDs in Hong Kong because they came with the original version (as in remastered, but Greedo didn't shoot first).

What I'm saying is I'm pretty much part of the problem: I'm not "voting with my wallet" by avoiding films with story changes I didn't like. And of course, it's not practical to do that because the changed story is a popular one you want to see, and by the time you see it's been changed, you already paid to see it.

I don't know what my point is, really, except to express my frustration that this is a problem that will never go away. As the viewer, I find it odd that filmmakers seemingly go out of their way to twist a story and I can't help but think their attitudes are 'screw the fans; it's MY film.' My question to them is: Why not just stay true to the story and make your whole audience happy? If you're such a talented filmmaker, you can tell the story as the author meant it to be and have your epic film.

Each could respond by saying that the film was obscenely profitable "when I did it my way," so why do it another way?

 

[Gryphos]

My question the them is: Why not just stay true to the story and make your whole audience happy? If you're such a talented filmmaker, you can tell the story as the author meant it to be and have your epic film.

Simple answer: because books and films are different mediums. What works in a book may not work in a film, and vice versa.

 

[acapes]

The movie aside from Tauriel had some terrible scenes (such as Legolas jumping on dwarves heads like Super Mario), but, she was the worst by far.

Didn't work for me either, and I love that game!

It's in keeping with old Legless from the way he acted in LOTR, but I still think the greatest disappointment of the adaptations for me so far was the scene with the Trolls.

On the other hand, I really enjoyed seeing Bard get an actual story.

On the third hand - in the book it's a great subversion of expectations and a great 'up yours' to Thorin's pride.

 

[Devor]

@Gryphos,

Every adaptaion is a little different. But art is about connecting with audiences, and with the Hobbit, everybody knew that the audiences came in with tremendous expectations and a tremendous degree of loyalty to the originals. It's not just about adapting the story to the medium - there's a million variations the films could have taken just to fit the camera - it's about adapting the Hobbit to meet its fans.

As was said before, a lot of things you can let slide. The corny fighting you can shrug off and get into, and try to justify. But Tauriel - when you look at the whole of what they did with the character - was a change that simply didn't work. She undermined the setting, the tone, and the story with her nonsensical romance plot.

If people are leaving the theaters disappointed and complaining about the character, in the numbers that they're doing so, then you can objectively say the adaptation did something wrong. The films didn't connect with an audience that was eager to find a connection with them.