• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Tauriel

Fyle

Inkling
Okay. Now, to start, I have nothing against "female" warriors. So the sexism argument is null and void here.
Here are some that I like as much if not more than many of the male characters of the story to prove that point.

Trinity (Matrix) - She is not an ugly woman, but she is masculine in her facial features to an extent and she come off with a confident bad ass attitiude. One of my favorite characters of the series.

Arya (Game of Thrones; and just about every other female character in GoT) - I never dreamed that a 8-9 year old girl or whatever age she is throughout would be one of my favorites for a series. She is an interesting and enjoyable character to read. Brianne is also an honorable mention as I really enjoy her on screen and reading her in A Feast for Crows; as she had plenty of page time in that book.

Eowyn (LoTR) She did not get as much page time / screen time as the others but, nonetheless, she was a strong female character who would not take no for an answer and ends up in an epic battle.

Mystic (X-Men) - I always found Mystic to be a fasinating character, she kicks ass not only physically but, she is intelligent as well, knowing who to morph into, what to do as that person, where to go as them.

Now, what makes me sick is Tauriel. The reason is, she was not thought out to fit well in the story, she was planted because the Hobbit has no female character that gets any real page time. She is thrown in because it seems that female warriors have been "in" over the past decade or two.

She was thrown in because New Line Cinema simply is scared there are not enough female fans. Not to mention they find an attractive young girl (well, to many people I suppose) to play the part; exposing her true intentions even more.

If Tauriel was just there in the backround and did not get involved in the main action, that would be better, (afterall, there were thousands of elves in Middle Earth) but she is involved in the main story, and the deliberate nature if anything only insults female characters like Eowen or Arya Stark who are original. Who are created as part of the organic story, from the authors mind to bring the world to life with a dynamic range of characters.

Christopher Tolkien does not even like the original LoTR films (which stick much closer to the source material than the Hobbit films and recieved acclaim overall from critics and fans of the book alike), I can only imagine what he thinks of Tauriel and shuffling things up so bad Legolas ends up in the Hobbit as a main character.

What's my point? (aside from a nerd rage)

If you like or accept this character know that she was created for you to like, she is no more than a McCharacter to sell tickets, and she takes away from the story and experience of it. She was made for those who never (probably will never) picked up the books.

Legolas bothers me as well, but there is a comfort in at least he was an original character created by Tolkien. He is terribly out of place; that's a different thread but needs to be stated.

FIRE away boys! Do your worst. Defend her. My ammo is loaded and finger on the trigger to shoot the defensive comments down!
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
I thought the elves were out of place or mishandled, one or the other. I can see a point in keeping the elves relevant before the Battle of Five Armies. I can see why they went they want dwarves and characters in Laketown when Smaug attacks. But the love interest thing was so odd and random. I thought even a slightly different direction would have been better.
 

Fyle

Inkling
I thought the elves were out of place or mishandled, one or the other. I can see a point in keeping the elves relevant before the Battle of Five Armies. I can see why they went they want dwarves and characters in Laketown when Smaug attacks. But the love interest thing was so odd and random. I thought even a slightly different direction would have been better.

Well, the love interest also has to do with appealing to female fans. That is another area where LoTR is rather weak (not that it is necessary, it's not), so, they wanted to add that too.

What better way to add a love story than with their new female character! *Doh!* Not only is the plotline terribly placed in the story, dwarves and elfs have a long standing hatred for one another in Middle Earth and it makes little sense - not to mention it is the captain of the army (or whatever she is the captain of) who falls for a dwarf. T-e-r-r-i-b-l-e... really, Disney stuff.

Think marketing and sell tickets and you can figure out Tauriel and friends. (Yes, I know sales are a big part of a movie but I am comparing this to its counterparts which are the other four movies and are done rather well and stick to the source material close as far as the main plots and main events... so why is this so decimated?).
 

acapes

Sage
She was thrown in because New Line Cinema simply is scared there are not enough female fans.

I'm not a big fan of her insertion into the story either, nor that white thing whoever he was, but I did like the seeing Gandalf checking the tombs of the Nazgûl.

Christopher Tolkien does not even like the original LoTR films

I found this quote from him, which is funny:

"They gutted the book, making an action film for 15 to 25-year-olds."

Which surprises me a little too, given the joy I and many of my friends got from the books at exactly those ages especially.
 
Well I haven't even seen the second film yet, my initial enjoyment of being back in middle earth quickly drifted away leaving me unexcited for the other 2 films.

From what I've heard of the love triangle thing though it sounds kind of clumsy. I can imagine it undermines the moment when Gimli and Galadriel effectively reconcile their races.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Tauriel is not completely invented. She's the Captain of the Mirkwood guard. That character exists in the book, but it is a male and as I recall Tolkien doesn't ever give him a name (he doesn't do a lot). So they took the Captain role, made it a female character, and expanded the role enormously. They expanded Arwen's role in the original trilogy as well.

I don't know what they're going to do with her, but it wouldn't surprise me if she doesn't survive, which would make it easy to explain why she is not in the LOTR movies.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Complaints about Tauriel:

1. Not in the book - True, she's not, at least not in the form she appears in the movie (see my previous post, regarding Captain of the Guard. The character is in the book, though male and with a very small role). Legolas isn't in the book at all, but he's all over the movie as well, but you wave your hand and give him a pass. It sounds more like you have a problem with a female character being introduced into the story (or the gender change that occurred) than a character in general being introduced in the first place.

2. Her role is expanded. If we accept that she's Captain of the Guard, then yeah, her role is greatly expanded. If you've read the book, you'll see the same goes for almost every character in the movies, including most of the dwarves (and, again, Legolas, who is never even mentioned in the book).

3. OMG she's a romantic character. Well, not really. There is a hint of romantic feeling, but she's also Captain of the Guard and a bad ass fighter. There are plenty of hints of romance throughout the movies (LOTR and Hobbit), and even outright romantic interests, on the part of male characters. But somehow when a female character gets an expanded role, people fixate on the romance element, as though nothing else about the character exists. Same arguments were made with respect to Arwen. Male characters can be varied, they can fight, think, and have romantic thoughts. But if a female character even comes close to a romantic subplot, suddenly that's all she is about? Doesn't sound rational to me.

4. She was created for you to like. What? Really? Filmmakers/writers create characters for viewers/readers to like? The humanity!
 

Gryphos

Auror
She is thrown in because it seems that female warriors have been "in" over the past decade or two.

A bit off-topic but, warriors full stop have been "in" for quite a bit longer than that. And the fact that recently there's started to become more of a balance between the genders is great!

As for Tauriel, I liked her. I thought she was a great addition to the films and, honestly, I couldn't care less if she wasn't in the book, or Legolas for that matter. You know why? Because I'm not reading the book, I'm watching the film. When you adapt a story to a new medium you have to... well, ADAPT IT. That's why I always disregard complaints about Tauriel on the bounds of her simply not being in the books. However, complaints about her as a character are fair game.

Now, the reason for her inclusion? I'm not going to lie, it was indeed almost certainly the fact that there were no female characters......... and?

Why shouldn't the film creators go through the effort to try and add some diversity in there? In a way, aren't they just trying to make the story better, more accessible, more relatable to a wider audience? Whether they succeed or not is unimportant, they're trying.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think she's perfect. There are some things I'm not a particular fan of, like the whole Kili romance. But those are just small complaints. She was still an entertaining character, and she certainly didn't take away from the film. Bottom line, I would rather have her in than not.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think she's perfect. There are some things I'm not a particular fan of, like the whole Kili romance. But those are just small complaints. She was still an entertaining character, and she certainly didn't take away from the film. Bottom line, I would rather have her in than not.

Interestingly, Legolas is a lot more harsh toward dwarves than he was in LOTR, even at the beginning when it is clear that he still doesn't really like them. Maybe Tauriel will affect his views.
 

acapes

Sage
When you adapt a story to a new medium you have to... well, ADAPT IT.

I agree, absolutely. Different mediums require different approaches and one should never be judged entirely on another's merits etc, but I personally found the films to be deeply flawed adaptations.

Still mostly enjoyed them for what they were though.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
Tauriel, for me, is an example of a character who was shoe horned into the story for reasons that weren't about the story. And maybe that's okay, as a motivation, but I think they needed to take more effort to make it work. It didn't work for me. Specifically, for me, her motivations in pursuing the dwarves were half-hazard, sudden, and presented in a way that felt a little weird to me. I didn't mind that she and Legolas had one of those will they/won't they relationships. But I did find it completely out of place that she should have an immediate romantice-at-first-sight connection with a dwarf, and that it should serve as the primary motivation for her following them.

Which also makes it a love triangle. Which, I felt, as an addition to the existing story, felt like a plot tumor. Especially when you already know that she's not going to end up with either one of them. So what was the point?

I would've appreciated it more if Tauriel fought and argued with the dwarf, and if they had found a mutual respect as warriors, and if she had been sold on the mission. But the way it was didn't work for me.

I didn't feel that she needed to be cut entirely. There was, again, a point to keeping the elves relevant and bringing main characters to Laketown when Smaug attacks in the final movie.
 

Mindfire

Istar
^ haphazard*

Tauriel doesn't bother me too much, aside form the fact that her name looks so darn... fanfic-y. It looks like an elf-name that someone trying really hard to mimic Tolkien would come up with, but it misses the mark. It would be right at home in Elder Scrolls, but here it just looks awkward. Surely they could have looked through his materials and come up with a name he actually created. But the biggest thing about Tauriel is that she feels so unnecessary. If you gave all her parts to Legolas and deleted the romantic subplots, hardly anything would change.
 

Incanus

Auror
From my perspective, it's not just Tauriel that's the problem, it's the whole thing. I haven't seen the second film, but I read all about it.

In the first film, I got a real strong sense of 'artistic decisions by committee' and 'artistic decisions based on demographics'.

I think the folks who adapted this story need to take a good hard look at the Simpsons episode where they add 'Poochie' to the 'Itchie and Scratchie Show'.

I can almost see it playing out:

"Now, warrior-ize Tauriel another 20 percent! Yeah!"

"Hmmm. A little too much. De-warrior-ize her by about 5 percent, and add 10 percent more sexiness."

"Ah! Perfection! That's her!! We've done it again!!"
 
Last edited:

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
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.
 

Noma Galway

Archmage
My issue is not with Tauriel as a character. I actually really like her. My issue is the romance with Kili. And Steerpike, thank you for the Captain of the Guard explanation. I couldn't find evidence for her at all in the book (unlike Azog, which I could find :D)
 

A. E. Lowan

Forum Mom
Leadership
To be honest, given the language and tone of the OP, even though I normally chime in on these discussions I haven't been motivated to dignify his posting with a response.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
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 also didn't like the battle with Smaug at the end, which seemed far too long for them to all survive, and made Smaug look weak. There were probably others - it's been a while - and I know there were a few things with the first movie. My wife and I saw the Hobbit and Catching Fire that weekend, expecting to love the first and only kind of like the second. But it was the other way around.

In the LOTR movie, there was exactly one change I didn't like: Balin and the dwarves of Moria. In the books, Balin went to Moria to reclaim it, and Gimli wanted to visit Moria to find out what happened to the expedition. In the movies, Gimli talks of Moria as a full-fledged dwarven city, and when he learns it's a tomb, he's got this scene of him screaming "NOOO!" and I think it's an epic fail. For some reason, whenever they mention changes from the book to the movie, they never mention that one.
 

Gryphos

Auror
In the LOTR movie, there was exactly one change I didn't like: Balin and the dwarves of Moria. In the books, Balin went to Moria to reclaim it, and Gimli wanted to visit Moria to find out what happened to the expedition. In the movies, Gimli talks of Moria as a full-fledged dwarven city, and when he learns it's a tomb, he's got this scene of him screaming "NOOO!" and I think it's an epic fail. For some reason, whenever they mention changes from the book to the movie, they never mention that one.

I see, but put yourself in the shoes of the writers and try to convey the information that Balin led an expedition there. Sure, you could have a few lines of dialogue, but wouldn't it seem so clunky and out of place? One thing people often forget is that in visual mediums like films, efficiency is vital. No piece of dialogue can be wasted. Having the audience assume that Moria is inhabited by Dwarves cuts the fluff immensely, and from an artistic standpoint it also allows for great scenes such as Gimli crying at Balin's tomb, a vital piece of character development in a film with such a large cast.

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.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
I see, but put yourself in the shoes of the writers and try to convey the information that Balin led an expedition there. Sure, you could have a few lines of dialogue, but wouldn't it seem so clunky and out of place? One thing people often forget is that in visual mediums like films, efficiency is vital. No piece of dialogue can be wasted. Having the audience assume that Moria is inhabited by Dwarves cuts the fluff immensely, and from an artistic standpoint it also allows for great scenes such as Gimli crying at Balin's tomb, a vital piece of character development in a film with such a large cast.

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.

We're on a tangent now, I guess. But Gimli cried at Balin's tomb in the book. It was a big moment.

I thought Gimli rambling about the feast they could enjoy at Moria completely ruined about twenty minutes of the movie. In the book, Frodo had this big moment when he had to choose the dangers of Moria over the mountain. That same moment happened in the movies, and if you weren't thinking "What the hell's wrong with you, go for the dwarven feast hall!" then you weren't paying attention. It would've been nothing to change those same lines about the feasting into a better picture of what's going on in Moria, and that would've developed Gimli's character far more.
 

Gryphos

Auror
We're on a tangent now, I guess. But Gimli cried at Balin's tomb in the book. It was a big moment.

I thought Gimli rambling about the feast they could enjoy at Moria completely ruined about twenty minutes of the movie. In the book, Frodo had this big moment when he had to choose the dangers of Moria over the mountain. That same moment happened in the movies, and if you weren't thinking "What the hell's wrong with you, go for the dwarven feast hall!" then you weren't paying attention. It would've been nothing to change those same lines about the feasting into a better picture of what's going on in Moria, and that would've developed Gimli's character far more.

One thing I've just realised. In the films Gimli never outright states what it's like in Moria. He just says "My cousin Balin will give us a royal welcome", or general descriptions of what Dwarf hospitality is like "Roaring fires, malt beer, ripe meat off the bone!". So in a way, isn't he, like the audience, only assuming that Dwarves are doing well in Moria. And even so, the audience is given an impression that he may be wrong by Gandalf immediately ruling out Moria as an option, saying "I would not go through Moria unless there were no other option." So in a way, the film didn't stray from the book, it only subtly shifted Gimli's attitude from "I wonder what's up in Moria" to "Yo, let's go through Moria. I'm sure it's alright there by now". 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.
 
Top