# Tauriel



## Fyle

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

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

Devor said:


> 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

Fyle said:


> 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 NazgÃ»l.



Fyle said:


> 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.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern

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

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

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

> 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

Gryphos said:


> 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

Gryphos said:


> 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

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

^ 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

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!!"


----------



## Steerpike

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

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 )


----------



## A. E. Lowan

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

Steerpike said:


> 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

> 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

Gryphos said:


> 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

Devor said:


> 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.


----------



## Devor

Gryphos said:


> 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

Gryphos said:


> 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

Incanus said:


> 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

Steerpike said:


> 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

Gryphos said:


> 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

Mindfire said:


> 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

Steerpike said:


> 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

Steerpike said:


> 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

Mindfire said:


> 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

Steerpike said:


> 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

Steerpike said:


> 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

Mindfire said:


> 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

Ireth said:


> 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

Fyle said:


> 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

Gryphos said:


> 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

Gryphos said:


> 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).


----------



## 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

Gryphos said:


> 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

Gryphos said:


> 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

Gryphos said:


> 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

Incanus said:


> 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

Gryphos said:


> 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

Devor said:


> 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

Ruby said:


> 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

Gryphos said:


> 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

Gryphos said:


> 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

Gryphos said:


> 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

Fyle said:


> 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.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Gryphos said:


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


I can't really buy into that as an explanation for a majority of the changes that annoy fans.

Here's my spoiler-free thoughts on changes that "had to" be made in GoT season 4 due to the medium:
- A festering wound being eventually fatal is hard to show on film, and easy to explain in a book.
- Which whore Tyrion and his father discussed: the TV audience only knows the one they saw on several episodes, not the one they heard about once; the reader in Tyrion's head knows how much his ex-wife meant to him.

Here are some changes that annoyed the hell out of me, and had absolutely nothing to do with medium:
- Jurassic Park: who lived, who died - with the exception of the main character couple and the children, survival/death was toggled. In the book, the hunter and lawyer lived and gramps and the chaos theory guy died. The hunter was smart and well-armed in the book and the lawyer wasn't a balding stereotype set up to die on the toilet.
- GoT: I know Martin approves of the change, but when I read the Red Wedding scene in the book, I was disappointed in the change in the show. Robb Stark was a moron bringing his wife there. In the book, he knew not to bring her. It changed the character.
- Star Wars [original vs. remake]: Greedo can't hit a guy sitting still and he has no reason to shoot mid-sentence, Han Solo's an idiot for letting him shoot and a bigger idiot for stepping on Jabba's tail. Jabba's a wacky cartoon mob boss. His eyes bug out, and he just puts up with it "like it never happened. Fuhgeddaboudit."

As I said, I didn't (and likely won't) see The Hobbit on film, but I can see why some fans aren't crazy about changing the cast of characters around. I don't think the medium is a reason to change who the characters are in a story. As Devor pointed out, there's a ripple effect. Now you have the pretty lady captain so, oh! I know, a love story! You can't have a lady captain and not have her fall in love, right? (Just making an assumption based on stuff I read in this thread. Apologies if I'm way off.)

I think when you're telling a popular story on film, you're telling it to an audience that knows that characters well. When you change character, it's a slap in the face to the audience. I guess you can get away with showing events that weren't shown in the book, and of course you can omit events that were shown in the book. And yeah, you can do whatever you want as the filmmaker, but changing character's fates and behaviors is what doesn't sit well with me. I think that's what rubs most fans the wrong way.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Devor said:


> The films didn't connect with an audience that was _eager_ to find a connection with them.


Yeah, that's what all my rambling was trying to get at. Well said!


----------



## Gryphos

Devor said:


> 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.



First off, I completely agree that Tauriel's romance was stupid. I just don't think her mere existence as a character is some kind of heinous crime. If they had had her as a character, but not gone for the romance, I would have been extra happy, because then you're bringing in a much-needed bit of female representation while not undermining the overall plot of the film. As it stands I still think it's good to have her, but I'm not happy with her precise execution as a character.

Secondly, I think you're overestimating the amount of people who didn't like the films. The first one made over a billion dollars! Any film that makes that much is connecting to the audience on some level. In this case I imagine it connected to the majority of the audience which doesn't care about the faithfulness of its adaptation and just wants to experience it as its own thing. You're assuming that the film was aimed at fans of the book. It clearly wasn't, but that's okay, because those fans of the book will always have the story they want: the book.


----------



## Ruby

Btw, did you hear about the person who came out of a cinema after seeing The Hobbit film, and asked if anyone was going to write a book called The Hobbit? 

Here's a really good website I've found which should help with any questions you have about Tolkien and his books:F.A.Q. Ã¢€“ The Tolkien Society


----------



## acapes

Ruby said:


> Btw, did you hear about the person who came out of a cinema after seeing The Hobbit film, and asked if anyone was going to write a book called The Hobbit?



Yeah, that was me


----------



## Steerpike

Yes the films are very popular. Most people I know who have read the book and are fans of Tolkien also love the Hobbit movies and are already itching to get in line for the last one. I found the Hobbit movies to be of lesser quality than the original trilogy. It's not the changes that bothered me so much as the overall tone and approach to the films.


----------



## Devor

Gryphos said:


> Secondly, I think you're overestimating the amount of people who didn't like the films. The first one made over a billion dollars! Any film that makes that much is connecting to the audience on some level. In this case I imagine it connected to the majority of the audience which doesn't care about the faithfulness of its adaptation and just wants to experience it as its own thing. You're assuming that the film was aimed at fans of the book. It clearly wasn't, but that's okay, because those fans of the book will always have the story they want: the book.



You can like something _despite_ disliking an aspect of the film. I don't think I'm overstating how many people disliked this aspect of the film.

I also think the buzz surrounding Peter Jackson and the film strongly support the assertion that the film was made with fans in mind. Most audience segments are not mutually exclusive. You can appeal both to fans and to the mass audience. And I think it's clear that was their intention.


----------



## Fyle

The main thing to me in many cases and in the case of Tauriel is - there was no reason to add her. None. Zero.

For this reason alone those who call themselves fans should be put off. 

Furthermore, the Hobbit was written in the 1930s, if there were no females leads, well, that's how it was written. Wouldn't you rather see original intentions then political correctness and ticket sales altering classics? And yes Legolas is pretty bad as well - the lesser of two abominations.


----------



## Steerpike

It's a reality today that a significant portion of the SF/F fan base is female. Readers, gamers, writers, and so on. It either wasn't that way 60 or 70 years ago, or at least the perception was that it wasn't. The works were targeted toward males. Females in the industry changed their names or used initials (James Tiptree, Jr., anyone?).

Arguing that an attempt to acknowledge the realities of the modern fan base and take a shot at representation (whether you like how it was actually done or not) is mere political correctness is a lazy argument.


----------



## Mindfire

Well this has certainly escalated quickly...


----------



## A. E. Lowan

Mindfire said:


> Well this has certainly escalated quickly...



Give me a minute - you ain't seen nuthin', yet. 



Fyle said:


> The main thing to me in many cases and in the case of Tauriel is - *there was no reason to add her. None. Zero.*
> 
> For this reason alone those who call themselves fans should be put off.
> 
> Furthermore, the Hobbit was written in the 1930s, if there were no females leads, well, that's how it was written. Wouldn't you rather see original intentions then political correctness and ticket sales altering classics? And yes Legolas is pretty bad as well - the lesser of two abominations.




Okay, you finally said it and I can't stay out any more.  "There was no reason to add her!" is the cry of the raging nerd, howling against the ever-encroaching reach of invading feminism.  (This cry is also heard in regards to persons of color, which I'll address in a moment.)  No reason?  I'm looking at IMDB, and going over the credits there are a total of *4* speaking female roles, counting Tauriel, in the *whole film*.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) - Full Cast & Crew - IMDb

One of the greatest privileges of being white and male is to be able to go anywhere and see yourself represented, to such a degree as to think it ubiquitous.  That it's "how things are."  "Look, there I am on the TV!"  "Look, there I am in the movie!"  "Look, here I am in this story!"  Little white boys grow up like this.

If a little girl goes to the movies she sees a world where men get to be complicated.  Men get to be horrible, obnoxious, weak, or even sociopathic, but still loved.  When she sees herself at all, she's a "good girl" or a "bad girl."  She only gets to be "strong."  And in a movie like you would have, where there "was no reason to add her at all," she gets to be erased.

Tauriel wasn't gender swapped for nerd boys to swoon over.  She's there so little girls can see themselves in this utter sea of men on that screen, and see a woman who is both fierce in battle and compassionate.  I don't like the romance nonsense, not because I disapprove of romance - I wouldn't mind getting lost in a mine with Kili, he's a cutie - but because culturally having a female character brings a knee-jerk "what man is she going to romantically orbit?" response.  I would have rather they left the romance subplot out, and let her be a fully realized character.

And for persons of color watching these movies, they don't exist at all, unless you count the Oliphant riders from the East, and that's pretty sketchy representation.  And whatever you do, don't try to argue that there were no POC in medieval Europe.  I will bury you so deep in primary source material you'll cry.  Tolkien wrote in a time and culture that suppressed POC even more than women, and it shows in his writing.  The purists need to stop bleating about his purity of vision, pull up their big-girl panties, and realize that even brilliant old white men were just that - old white men who erased more than half the human experience before they even wrote the words "Once Upon a Time."


----------



## Gryphos

> No reason? I'm looking at IMDB, and going over the credits there are a total of 4 speaking female roles, counting Tauriel, in the whole film.



An interesting thing to also note is that none of them were in the book, and only one of them was a creation of Tolkien.


----------



## Jabrosky

A. E. Lowan said:


> And for persons of color watching these movies, they don't exist at all, unless you count the Oliphant riders from the East, and that's pretty sketchy representation.  And whatever you do, don't try to argue that there were no POC in medieval Europe.  I will bury you so deep in primary source material you'll cry.  Tolkien wrote in a time and culture that suppressed POC even more than women, and it shows in his writing.  The purists need to stop bleating about his purity of vision, pull up their big-girl panties, and realize that even brilliant old white men were just that - old white men who erased more than half the human experience before they even wrote the words "Once Upon a Time."


I did see a few African extras intermixed with the Europeans in Lake-town, but again that was sketchy representation.

I don't doubt that, in our world's timeline, people of all colors have traveled around the world throughout history. Africans in medieval Europe make no less sense to me than Conan the Cimmerian adventuring around the Black Kingdoms.

On the other hand, you might want to consider that most of the characters in these movies are not _Homo sapiens_ but come from different species indigenous to Middle Earth's northern areas. Assuming the elves, dwarves, and hobbits have their evolutionary roots in these northern areas, odds are they would have adapted to the local conditions just as Neanderthals adapted to Ice Age Europe. Therefore they probably wouldn't physically resemble Africans or anyone else we perceive as "people of color".

On the other hand, since _Homo sapiens_ would have reached northern Middle Earth from the tropical regions of the south more recently, it would make more sense for the human characters to have darker skin and other non-European traits. Even that would hinge on how just long ago the human species settled the northern areas.


----------



## Steerpike

I don't think you can apply real-world evolutionary principles to Middle Earth very easily. According to the lore, humans were created, just as the elves were during the First Age. They didn't evolve and I don't think there is anything in the lore to suggest the humans in the books came ultimately from southern ancestors.


----------



## Devor

Steerpike said:


> I don't think you can apply real-world evolutionary principles to Middle Earth very easily. According to the lore, humans were created, just as the elves were during the First Age. They didn't evolve and I don't think there is anything in the lore to suggest the humans in the books came ultimately from southern ancestors.



I don't know about the humans, but there were four breeds of Hobbits, which wound up intermingled in the Shire. Smeagol was of one breed. Was it Pippin that showed signs of being another? There were seven clans of dwarves, although we only see Durin's kin, but two others would have passed regularly through Bree, and possibly another fought with the easterlings. And Galadriel was a Noldor elf ruling a Silvan realm. Tolkein's worldbuilding has a great number of ethnicities already built into the world that could end up expanded or explored without changing hardly any of the story at all.


----------



## Steerpike

There's plenty of room for including and/or expanding on varying ethnicities in Tolkien's world. But I don't think the general idea of humans evolving in a southern clime, as darker-skinned groups, and then migrating outwardly from there to populate other areas of Middle Earth necessarily holds true. Or, at least, there is no reason to think it does.


----------



## Steerpike

I think A.E. Lowan makes excellent points, above. You'll find a lot of resistance toward inclusion in geekdom. I wonder, sometimes, if it isn't that so many people in geek culture came into it growing up, at a time when they may have been socially-awkward or excluded themselves. Geekdom offered a haven of like-minded individuals, and a certain sanctuary from society at large. Maybe attempts at inclusion are seen, consciously or unconsciously, as an effort by society at large to intrude into this safe haven. I know people personally who dislike the idea of their geek interests become popular in the culture as a whole. They draw the dichotomy between 'real fans' (i.e. those like them who tend to be insulated from society as a whole and put a strong sense of identity into their affiliation with geek culture) and the wannabe sort of fans who start to come in when something gets popular. I think there is a tendency to want to maintain the insular nature of aspects of geekdom.

Going back to the OP, I think when you have to start off a post by effectively saying "Hey, now, I'm not sexist, but..." it should be a signal to go back and look at things from a different light. I'm not saying that the OP or anyone else in the thread is sexist, but merely pointing out that feeling the need to preface a comment with that kind of statement should be a bit of a flag that what you're talking about has some depth and nuance to it, rather than blithely moving ahead with categorical denouncements of the subject at hand and failing to consider all of the types of things A.E. Lowan mentioned, above.


----------



## Jabrosky

Steerpike said:


> I think A.E. Lowan makes excellent points, above. You'll find a lot of resistance toward inclusion in geekdom. I wonder, sometimes, if it isn't that so many people in geek culture came into it growing up, at a time when they may have been socially-awkward or excluded themselves. Geekdom offered a haven of like-minded individuals, and a certain sanctuary from society at large. Maybe attempts at inclusion are seen, consciously or unconsciously, as an effort by society at large to intrude into this safe haven. I know people personally who dislike the idea of their geek interests become popular in the culture as a whole. They draw the dichotomy between 'real fans' (i.e. those like them who tend to be insulated from society as a whole and put a strong sense of identity into their affiliation with geek culture) and the wannabe sort of fans who start to come in when something gets popular. I think there is a tendency to want to maintain the insular nature of aspects of geekdom.


I don't know what the proportional demographics of geek culture actually are, but my stereotypical image of a geek honestly depicts an affluent white male. In certain ways that's actually a pretty privileged position to occupy, so the geeks who fit that stereotype might have difficulty relating to perspectives outside the affluent-white-male demographic intersection. Of course, that affluent white males as a whole are the social-justice trolls' favorite punching bag cuts the rift even deeper.


----------



## Chessie

Wonderful discussion and yes, AE Lowan makes some strong points. 

The only thing I have to add is that its unreasonable to expect Hollywood not to change anything. They have their creative adaptations to stories the same way the rest of us do when we come up with ideas borrowed from someone else. We all do it. On one hand, I can understand why geeks are upset over the creation of Tauriel. And on the other, its like come on. Did you really think that everything was going to be kept the same?

Modern society is very different from what it was in the 1930s. In general, most of the LOTR movies have been centered around all white males. What's the problem with including a female that represents something positive for young girls, like AE Lowan said? Think about how much of fantasy *is* centered on the young white males. As a Hispanic woman, I personally would love to see more diversity. Do I expect it? Not really. Its not something that bothers me that much because its just the way things are. 

So to be upset over the inclusion of a female "just because" is unreasonable. Hollywood has to market to more than just young white males. Let's be realistic here.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

A. E. Lowan said:
			
		

> culturally having a female character brings a knee-jerk "what man is she going to romantically orbit?" response. I would have rather they left the romance subplot out, and let her be a fully realized character.


This is something I can't stand about the way many female characters are represented. You can have a male warrior and he just fights, and the audience may never know about his love life or if he has one, and the audience isn't expected to care. But add a female warrior into your adventure and who's her ex? Who's her betrothed? What guy will win her heart? Is there a love triangle? Uh-oh!

I have three daughters. I would like to see more strong female characters who aren't automatically attached to a guy.



…of course, even those truly strong, non-romantic woman warriors have fans who might imagine romance subplots, like the artist who created this cute (and clean) Brienne/Jaime fan art.





@Chesterama, don't get me started on racial representation. My daughter expressed a wish to be blonde like Barbie. She's half-Chinese (and I've got black hair, so blonde wasn't happening anyway). I told her that her hair might get a little browner (it WAS black at birth) and she's beautiful the way she is.

As far as her having a half-white, half-Asian role model… well…

So far, I only recall one "Eurasian" character in film, and she got her arms chopped off in Kill Bill. Chun Li was played by a Eurasian actresss (in the 2009 crappy film, not the 1994 crappy film), but the character is supposed 100% Chinese. Last night, my wife and I watched Hawaii Five-O and got a laugh at a scene in Hong Kong. They showed stock footage of HK, and onscreen the word "KOWLOON" appeared. We laughed because the shot was taken from the Kowloon side, but it was a shot of Central. Also yesterday, my wife saw a children's book about Dim Sum written by someone who obviously knew very little about Chinese culture. My wife just gets amused by the ignorance.


----------



## Ruby

Hi Legendary Sidekick, Thanks for posting the link to Deviant Art which I was able to view as I've recently joined it. I liked the painting although I haven't a clue what the story is about as I haven't read Game of Thrones.(Yet.)

Regarding sexism in books, I was never bothered as either a child or an adult that The Hobbit and LOTR had very few female characters. They are still my favourite books. I like the stories and the quality of the writing.

On the other hand, how many men read Little Women or Pride and Prejudice and wonder about the lack of central male characters?

Re the original post, the problem with Tauriel in the Hobbit movie is that she is a TOKEN female character. Why is she pretty and has a love affair with the only handsome dwarf? Why doesn't she fall in love with an ugly one? 

The fight scenes where she and the other elf (Legolas?) manage to defeat scores of orcs along the river is also ridiculous. It's an entertaining film made for children and based very loosely on The Hobbit.

As for children wanting to look like Barbie, someone once worked out that if Barbie existed in real life, with those proportions she wouldn't be able to stand up!


----------



## Gryphos

> Re the original post, the problem with Tauriel in the Hobbit movie is that she is a TOKEN female character. Why is she pretty and has a love affair with the only handsome dwarf? Why doesn't she fall in love with an ugly one?



As far as I'm concerned, it's better to have a token female character than none at all.


----------



## A. E. Lowan

Ruby said:


> Regarding sexism in books, *I was never bothered as either a child or an adult that The Hobbit and LOTR had very few female characters.* They are still my favourite books. I like the stories and the quality of the writing.
> 
> On the other hand, how many men read Little Women or Pride and Prejudice and wonder about the lack of central male characters?
> 
> Re the original post, the problem with Tauriel in the Hobbit movie is that she is a TOKEN female character. *Why is she pretty and has a love affair with the only handsome dwarf? Why doesn't she fall in love with an ugly one?*
> 
> The fight scenes where she and the other elf (Legolas?) manage to defeat scores of orcs along the river is also ridiculous. It's an entertaining film made for children and based very loosely on The Hobbit.
> 
> As for children wanting to look like Barbie, someone once worked out that if Barbie existed in real life, with those proportions she wouldn't be able to stand up!



When something is "how things are," it's easy to not be bothered.  No one else looks bothered, right (even though I can tell something's bothering you from your next series of questions)?  But let's look at what "how things are" when seen from the other side.  It shows how pervasive subtle these expectations are in culture, and answers your questions about Tauriel had to be a "Barbie Doll."  This is very short, the images are subtle, just like they always are, but pay the most attention to the last scene.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Race and gender representation shouldn't be forced. Characters should just be great characters, regardless of race and gender.

I don't have a problem with inclusion (and, as Ruby pointed out, I think the OP was trying to say he doesn't either), but taking a well known work of literature and saying "let's retell it but add a woman"… there just seems to be something wrong with _that_. When I think "inclusion" in writing, I think of it as writing your own story with characters of the race and gender of your choosing. When someone takes an existing IP and adds original characters or changes existing characters and/or their fates (romance, life/death), that's fan-fic. When I see a film "based on" an existing story, I don't expect fan-fic. I do appreciate it most when the filmmaker sticks to the story.

Maybe the Captain of the Guard is an ambiguous character, and so Jackson simply took liberties with the possibility that the Captain _could_ have been a woman…? I don't know. It's been almost 30 years since I read the book. But now I'm reading that Legolas is in _The Hobbit_ films, too. It just seems odd that Jackson did LotR so well (or if there were complaints, they were drowned out by complaints about the _Star Wars_ prequels), and now he's taking a single book, turning it into a 10-hour trilogy, and deviating in ways that seem to irk a lot of fans. These aren't changes necessary for the screen, are they? To me it comes off like, "I don't trust this story is interesting with the current cast of characters. I'm going to add a popular character and one I made up because it's MY story now." I feel like it's arrogance on Peter Jackson's part, where with LotR, I felt like he respected the story and told it well.

I mean, I didn't see _The Hobbit_. I'm just seeing this discussion and thinking, if half the people in this discussion think Peter Jackson made a bad move, they have a valid complaint. If you add a character and the result is immersion is broken because your audience is asking, "Who is this? She wasn't in the book!"–is that strengthening the story? Not for the readers who were unpleasantly surprised by your "artistic license." Should I, the audience member, be thought a fool for assuming a film called _The Hobbit_ would be about characters from _The Hobbit_ doing what they did in _The Hobbit?_ Should I apologize for feeling ripped off because the film displayed the phrase "based on" onscreen?


----------



## Fyle

Ruby;176701

Re the original post said:


> This is a big part of what i am saying that goes over peoples heads. It is not that she is female per se, it is the type of character she is. Very sell out, crowd pleasing un-Middle Earth like character.
> 
> Now wait... who am I to say she is un-Middle Earth? I'm not, only Tolkien can say for sure, which is why the movies should include originals only. If they do include makeshift characters a Junior High School kid can come up with than they should say 'based on the Hobbit' in the title or on the posters.
> 
> And I know one thing for sure, if it was your own story and someone added such a cardboard character to sell more, you may even approve for the sake of sales, but you would know darn well the original story worked much better with the characters you intended. If Tauriel does not bother you, I have to wonder how you view your own creative process.


----------



## Svrtnsse

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but to me it's the dwarf-elf relation that's the most annoying part. 

Within my frames of reference, dwarves and elves are generally not on the best of terms - as far as species to species relations go. It seem really odd to me that an elf would fall for a random dwarf they pick up in the forest.


----------



## Fyle

Svrtnsse said:


> I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but to me it's the dwarf-elf relation that's the most annoying part.
> 
> Within my frames of reference, dwarves and elves are generally not on the best of terms - as far as species to species relations go. It seem really odd to me that an elf would fall for a random dwarf they pick up in the forest.



Yes, that was mentioned and further proves she is a cardboard character there to please a certain audience, not an attempt to add a character that fits well (which is extremely difficult in this case being that Tolkien is unique and practically defined the genre as we know it).

Thanks for the response!


----------



## Gryphos

> Should I, the audience member, be thought a fool for assuming a film called The Hobbit would be about characters from The Hobbit doing what they did in The Hobbit?



Again, it is about characters in the Hobbit doing what they did in the Hobbit. People just seem really eager to overstate the differences.



> Should I apologize for feeling ripped off because the film displayed the phrase "based on" onscreen?



Well... yes. The wording seems pretty clear.


----------



## Fyle

Gryphos said:


> Again, it is about characters in the Hobbit doing what they did in the Hobbit. People just seem really eager to overstate the differences.
> 
> 
> 
> Well... yes. The wording seems pretty clear.




If you had creative control over the Hobbit Gryphos, would you add a character similar to Tauriel or do your best to bring the source material to life as Tolkien invisioned it? 
Do you think more than the Hobbit contained is necessary?


----------



## Gryphos

Fyle said:


> If you had creative control over the Hobbit Gryphos, would you add a character similar to Tauriel or do your best to bring the source material to life as Tolkien invisioned it?
> Do you think more than the Hobbit contained is necessary?



I would've thought it would be obvious by this point, but hells yeah I would have added a Tauriel-esque character. Maybe not exactly like Tauriel (and definitely not one with a romantic subplot), but definitely a female side-protagonist.

Because the way Tolkien envisioned it was great... for almost a century ago. But as AE Lowan has already explained at length, it wouldn't work and shouldn't work for today's society.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Gryphos said:


> Well... yes. The wording seems pretty clear.


My point is that making a major change in a work is an immersion-breaker. I went through this sort of thing several times watching GoT season 4.



Spoiler: filtering out GoT stuff



My wife asked if Meera was going to be raped when she and Bran were captured at Craster's, and I said, "I hope not, since this never happened in the book." In other words, to someone who didn't know the original story, this was a scary situation and NOT an immersion-breaker. If you knew the story, every major deviation ran the "risk" of removing you from the story with those moments of denial.

That's not to say that I personally hated all changes. It's just the ones I found stupid, such as Asha Greyjoy and the Bolton Bastard facing each other so Reece could twirl his villain mustache in front of her. Other deviations, like those in episode 10, were fun enough that I was still in the story, cheering on Brienne and holy crapping over a death that didn't happen in any of the books (yet).

But one reader I spoke to said he and his friends didn't care for Brienne's victory because they felt she could never take on the Hound. Others suspected Jojen's death was a book 6 spoiler, so how dare they write that. Just because some changes didn't bother me, it doesn't mean no one is allowed to be bothered by them.



What I'm getting at is that the viewer can't help how s/he genuinely feels, and "based on" simply means the filmmaker has permission to change the story. Jackson is allowed to write that Bilbo dies at the end and preempt the credit roll with onscreen text explaining that the events in LotR are simply a dream, a false hope Bilbo had in his dying breath.

^That's an absurd example, but it's there to point out that everyone has a threshold where "based on" would no longer suffice as an excuse for a book-to-film deviation.





Svrtnsse,

Don't you get it? The dwarf-elf relationship is moving JRRT's crappy story out of the Stone Age. As someone who is in a marriage of mixed ethnicities, I say it's about time _(*pounds table*)_ we've had a dwarf-elf coupling on film. If Samwise married a human girl, LotR would've had a better ending. _(*takes swig of alcoholic beverage*)_ Maybe in the re-release…


----------



## Fyle

Gryphos said:


> I would've thought it would be obvious by this point, but hells yeah I would have added a Tauriel-esque character. Maybe not exactly like Tauriel (and definitely not one with a romantic subplot), but definitely a female side-protagonist.
> 
> Because the way Tolkien envisioned it was great... for almost a century ago. But as AE Lowan has already explained at length, it wouldn't work and shouldn't work for today's society.



There is a term, a phrase many people pin to great works of art, movies, books and songs. That phrase is timeless. Which means the work maintains its quality through the ages, it maintains its value no matter what the times call for.

This is what Tolkiens work is to many many people - fans and people in the industry. These works are best left untarnished to maintain its original quality, when you change too much of the original, it loses what made it timeless. In this case, we trade timeless storytelling for flavor of the week. 

(Some punctuation was missed, I typed this on my iphone」


----------



## Gryphos

> This is what Tolkiens work is to many many people - fans and people in the industry. These works are best left untarnished to maintain its original quality, when you change to much of the original, it loses what made it timeless. In this case, we trade timeless storytelling for flavor of the week.



Well then, those people should probably do themselves a favour and not watch the film. Problem solved.


----------



## Steerpike

If someone wants to be a purist, that's fine. _The Hobbit_ films offer plenty of opportunity for the purist to complain. They bear little resemblance to the original book. If, in the face of the multitude of changes to book, the majority are hand-waved or excused out of hand and someone says "But you know what I really hate? They added a girl!" then claims of purism are bollocks. A purist has a whole lot to complain about.

Although the original trilogy was more faithful there was some of the same argument there, where people were ultimately fine with _most_ of the changes, but what really pissed them off was Arwen. 

If you want to be a purist, then be a purist and hold true to that position, don't excuse everything except the increased gender inclusion.


----------



## Philip Overby

I'll jump in here, only to say I've watched both Hobbit films so far and neither one of them bothered me in any way. Sure, the romance sub-plot felt shoehorned in, but the fact that Tauriel was a woman had no effect on me really because I wasn't that familiar with the novel (although I read it a while back). I thought she was a decent character that added something to the movie version anyway. I do remember the barrel scene in the book and I did think it was a little over the top to have all that chaos happening. But, I kept remembering, "Oh, this is a movie. Having people float in barrels for 30 minutes would probably suck." 

To the point Steerpike made about purists, I think I was the same about GoT when the series first started. I was a "read the books" guy. But then as the series went on, they changed some things here and there and I never went, "What? Why the hell did they do that?" I figured that GRRM is a producer, consultant, and sometimes writer of the show, so whatever. 

I get the idea that people want to protect the original version of the story without taking liberties with it, but it's a movie. Movies rarely are adapted faithfully to their source material. 

I would like to see more original IP made though, especially in fantasy. I don't even know when the last time I've seen a fantasy movie that was an original screenplay. Hell, maybe I've never seen one. It must be a hard sell in Hollywood.


----------



## Ruby

I found this on You Tube today. It's a cartoon called The Hobbit dated 1966. 

The HOBBIT 1966 - YouTube


----------



## Devor

Steerpike said:


> If someone wants to be a purist, that's fine. _The Hobbit_ films offer plenty of opportunity for the purist to complain. They bear little resemblance to the original book. If, in the face of the multitude of changes to book, the majority are hand-waved or excused out of hand and someone says "But you know what I really hate? They added a girl!" then claims of purism are bollocks. A purist has a whole lot to complain about.
> 
> Although the original trilogy was more faithful there was some of the same argument there, where people were ultimately fine with _most_ of the changes, but what really pissed them off was Arwen.
> 
> If you want to be a purist, then be a purist and hold true to that position, don't excuse everything except the increased gender inclusion.



To be honest, it's been so long since I've read the books, most of the differences went right over my head. And I have no trouble dismissing something like a fight scene because it's clearly a screen change instead of a story change.

There's purity, sure. But as Mr. Legend said, there's also immersion. Tauriel - and I'm taking the character as a whole, here, romance and all - was such a tremendous contrast with the rest of the movie, with everything I did remember from the Hobbit, that her scenes became difficult to watch.

I don't think that would've been as much of the case for me if they had done something other than the romance. But I don't have a hypothetical Tauriel to use as a control. I've only got the character they put on screen. And that character was added for reasons outside the main story - alright, I'll accept that - but she fell into every one of the pitfalls people associate with doing so.

It wasn't just that she was a female elf. It's that she was _just_​ a female elf.


----------



## Jabrosky

Philip Overby said:


> I would like to see more original IP made though, especially in fantasy. I don't even know when the last time I've seen a fantasy movie that was an original screenplay. Hell, maybe I've never seen one. It must be a hard sell in Hollywood.


THIS.

Think about it, an original story would give the filmmakers so much more leeway in the world-building, casting, and plotting than adapting a pre-existing mythos. They wouldn't have to worry about angry purists anymore!


----------



## Svrtnsse

What if they'd made one or two of the dwarves female instead, but kept them otherwise the same?

As I recall there ARE female dwarves, they're just really rare - or did I get that wrong?


----------



## Devor

Svrtnsse said:


> What if they'd made one or two of the dwarves female instead, but kept them otherwise the same?
> 
> As I recall there ARE female dwarves, they're just really rare - or did I get that wrong?



They also have beards.

I think that would've been more jarring at first, but I may have found it easier to get used to as the movies went along. It's hard to say. It's a big character change, and I normally hate when people suggest gender swapping an existing character, but some of the dwarves weren't that firmly established to begin with. Tauriel got worse as the film went on. I'm dreading the inevitable scenes in the last movie when they're going to have to talk out their little love triangle.

If I was asked, before I saw the movie, whether I'd prefer the elf or the genderswapped dwarves, I would've said the elf, by far. Having seen what that meant I would say the dwarf.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Philip Overby said:


> Movies rarely are adapted faithfully to their source material.


True, but audiences tend to only notice blatant changes, such as a new character or change in a character's fate. Audiences tend not to care when they are entertained.

I don't think most people taking the "purist" stance would complain if they liked Tauriel's inclusion, and I don't think her gender is the issue. Maybe Taurien the male captain becoming Kili's drinking buddy would also be an immersion-breaker.

Speaking for myself, GoT deviations I LOVED were those in episode 10. They were blatant fate-changers, but done well, so I loved them. People who didn't share my opinion felt immersion was broken and complained. (Professional authors' opinions are mixed as on this board: GRRM loves the changes in GoT. Tom Clancy and Michael Crichton hated the changes in their work.)


----------



## Ireth

As a longtime LOTR fan and self-proclaimed "book purist", I'll add my own two cents. I didn't mind the inclusion of Tauriel as a character; it was the ridiculous love arc that really ticked me off. There was absolutely no need for it, and no precedent for it in canon. Elves and Dwarves are supposed to be unfriendly toward one another in general; it's why the friendship between Legolas and Gimli in LOTR was so unusual. It's been thus since the very beginning, as part of the Dwarves' history. They were created by Aule, a Vala, against the wishes of Iluvatar (God). It was only because of Aule's humility that Iluvatar accepted the Dwarves as adopted children, but He said explicitly that there would always be strife between the Children that He made and those He chose to adopt.

As for the other changes to the Hobbit movies: I liked that they included Legolas, and I'm not a huge Orlando Bloom fan at all. But it made total sense for him to be there, since he's King Thranduil's son, even though he isn't present in the book. And I very much liked the expansion of Bard's character and storyline, making him less of a Deus ex Machina. I would have liked to see more of Beorn as well.

One thing I'm REALLY hoping for in the third film (though not very optimistic about it actually happening) is that we'll see Galadriel throwing down the walls of Dol Guldur. According to the books, that doesn't happen until after Sauron is destroyed for good in LOTR, but Jackson has screwed with the timeline so much it would hardly matter at this point. Plus it would be a *wonderful* example of a canon character, and a female one at that, doing something legitimately badass. We've seen how wise and beautiful Galadriel is, and in FOTR we get a glimpse of how powerful she *could* be (if she'd accepted the Ring). But with Dol Guldur, we'd get to see how powerful she *is*. And that would be cool.

But, as I said, I'm not optimistic. I know she'll at least be IN the movie, if the trailer isn't lying, so that's something.


----------



## Gryphos

> I didn't mind the inclusion of Tauriel as a character; it was the ridiculous love arc that really ticked me off.



Well then you can pretty much join the club, because if there's one thing almost everyone agrees on, it's that that was stupid.


----------



## Philip Overby

Legendary Sidekick said:


> True, but audiences tend to only notice blatant changes, such as a new character or change in a character's fate. Audiences tend not to care when they are entertained.
> 
> I don't think most people taking the "purist" stance would complain if they liked Tauriel's inclusion, and I don't think her gender is the issue. Maybe Taurien the male captain becoming Kili's drinking buddy would also be an immersion-breaker.
> 
> Speaking for myself, GoT deviations I LOVED were those in episode 10. They were blatant fate-changers, but done well, so I loved them. People who didn't share my opinion felt immersion was broken and complained. (Professional authors' opinions are mixed as on this board: GRRM loves the changes in GoT. Tom Clancy and Michael Crichton hated the changes in their work.)



I guess I take everything at face value now and try not to even consider the source material. I used to get so pissed off when watching movies and said, "That wasn't in the book!" There are still times when I get a little annoyed, but I've come to accept there are going to be parts to almost every movie I don't like. The Tauriel romantic sub-plot didn't seem like it took up that much time (or was forgettable at least). I think the execution of romantic plots in general needs to be revamped somehow. The whole "I love you, I hate you, I love you" deal is kind of lazy. 

I felt like the main purpose of the sub-plot was to have a ticking clock element later on in the movie. So it had a purpose at least.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Philip Overby said:


> I guess I take everything at face value now and try not to even consider the source material. *I used to get so pissed off when watching movies and said, "That wasn't in the book!"* There are still times when I get a little annoyed, but I've come to accept there are going to be parts to almost every movie I don't like. The Tauriel romantic sub-plot didn't seem like it took up that much time (or was forgettable at least). I think the execution of romantic plots in general needs to be revamped somehow. The whole "I love you, I hate you, I love you" deal is kind of lazy.
> 
> I felt like the main purpose of the sub-plot was to have a ticking clock element later on in the movie. So it had a purpose at least.


I think this was how GoT went for me this season. By the end, I expected deviations.

I think for me, there's a bit of "if he had stuck to the original, that crappy scene would not exist" if a deviation isn't done well. I have a feeling that's really why the average "purist" complains. Not for the sake of being a purist, but seeing a change that didn't work and wondering why the change was made. If the story isn't changed and it sucks on film, that becomes a different kind of complaint. If anything, the filmmaker might get more slack than s/he deserves for sticking to the book.

I guess what it comes down to is, you don't need to justify liking or hating Tauriel's inclusion. Either you enjoyed her being in the film or you didn't.



Spoiler: blah, blah, GoT stuff that's semi-relevant



Don't think I'm pretending to be completely objective though. I'll admit to the petty playing of favorites when it came to the many GoT deviations. Brienne's killing someone she didn't kill in the book was something I enjoyed, admittedly, because I like Brienne. Darion in single combat pissed me off because Strong Belwas was supposed to win that duel, and I hate Darion. If Brienne dies in the book but lives in the show, I'll complain quietly. If it's the other way around, I'll complain loudly. If Darion dies, I'll only complain if it's painless.


----------



## Svrtnsse

I had a thought when walking home tonight. Threads like this one are a really great example of why characters matter.


----------



## Fyle

The thing is this. 

YES - it is all just a matter of opinion, however, there needs to be a certain amount of logic used to help bring the series to life and work when the source material is changed so drastically. 

Now, let's take Game of Thrones as an example as Mr.Overby mentions. I used to be the same way, if it wasn't in the books, I would roll my eyes and usually hated it; then of course tell my friends how the books are. It is better to go through life taking it as face value, it saves you stress and makes things more enjoyable. My friends who have not read A Song of Ice and Fire enjoy the show more without expectations. But - I have limits. I cannot just take it at face value when such a classic like the Hobbit is being mishandled. _This is a classic tale that will be passed down well longer than we debating this here will all be alive_, it is not just another movie adaption I can shrug at and be like "okay, that was cool. whatever. sure."

What I mean about a certain type of logic is, let's look at Star Wars: Episode One. Now, suffice to say, unless someone is gonna be really stubborn here, I seriously doubt more than 1-5% of the original Star Wars fans liked or found Jar Jar Binks to fit in the movie well (if I am wrong, post your love for Jar Jar people, it would most likely be a first for me to see Jar Jar Binks love).

The reason Jar Jar did not fit in the movie and broke the immersion, was because he was included and designed as a marketing tool for kids. He was not meant to maintain that mysterious wonderful feel we loved when we were younger. He was not meant to develop any plot or play an important role - he was there to sell tickets (by the way to sell tickets to a movie which was guaranteed to make mega millions anyway as was the Desolation of Smaug). 

I look at Tauriel as a Jar Jar Binks type character, _yes_, she is female, that is just the icing on the cake for the sell out and the sex of the character has little to do with it. She is designed to sell tickets, she is designed for people who normally would not normally have an interest in LOTR to have "a reason" to go see the movie. This is what insults the work to me and just ruins the experience. 

Why did she have a love affair with a dwarf? Because they wanted a love story in the movie. Same basic idea as the character Tauriel itself. That is such an obvious disaster of a plot line it really lets you know the suits are in charge here.

Why do I care? 

Because fantasy is one of the last escapes you will have from this harsh reality, and seeing Tolkien's work spit on is just sad. Nobody needs to correct anything Tolkien did. Sure, his work wasn't perfect, nothing is, but... the people who are butchering it are a lot less perfect at storytelling than Tolkien was. And have the wrong reasons.

**Svrtnsse**

Thank you! I could not agree more!


----------



## A. E. Lowan

Captain America, a comic book title - and a hero - dating back as far as The Hobbit and arguably just as much as an indelible classic "for the ages" as Tolkien's work, very recently had an announcement.

It's Time for An All-New Captain America | News | Marvel.com

Reactions have ranged the gamut - "it's a marketing ploy" "it's pandering" "why can't they just launch new titles and new heroes for *them* and leave the A-list titles alone?" "they're ruining the comic!"

Sound familiar?


----------



## Jabrosky

A. E. Lowan said:


> Captain America, a comic book title - and a hero - dating back as far as The Hobbit and arguably just as much as an indelible classic "for the ages" as Tolkien's work, very recently had an announcement.
> 
> It's Time for An All-New Captain America | News | Marvel.com
> 
> Reactions have ranged the gamut - "it's a marketing ploy" "it's pandering" "why can't they just launch new titles and new heroes for *them* and leave the A-list titles alone?" "they're ruining the comic!"
> 
> Sound familiar?


I actually have seen some African-American commentators making those exact same complaints about the change to Captain America. Especially the one about launching new titles and heroes. One of them said that he felt that an African-American Cap would have to stand in the shadow of the original Cap's legacy and that he would prefer innovative African characters who could establish their own legacy. At least the Captain of the Guard in Tolkien's original _Hobbit_ barely had any legacy to overshadow Tauriel.

Personally, if it were up to me to race-bend the Cap, I would have made him Native American. He is supposed to represent Americana, and you can't get much more American than a Native American, can you?


----------



## Fyle

A. E. Lowan said:


> Captain America, a comic book title - and a hero - dating back as far as The Hobbit and arguably just as much as an indelible classic "for the ages" as Tolkien's work, very recently had an announcement.
> 
> It's Time for An All-New Captain America | News | Marvel.com
> 
> Reactions have ranged the gamut - "it's a marketing ploy" "it's pandering" "why can't they just launch new titles and new heroes for *them* and leave the A-list titles alone?" "they're ruining the comic!"
> 
> Sound familiar?



Well, the other four movies were done rather well, so they got 4/5 acceptable so far. You can't compare Captain America to the monster that LOTR is.

I suppose if you are born and raised in the US every last super hero sounds "big" but, when you broaden the scope, LOTR can be found in libraries in languages all over the world. Im no expert in comic books, but i doubt Captain America's influnce to the super hero genre equals Tolkiens influence over fantasy.

By the way, please defend Tauriel, not my type of argument. Write a rebuttal to my main claim that she does not belong and why you feel her character is enjoyable to watch. Thanks for the comment, I did not know that about Captain America.


----------



## Gryphos

> By the way, please defend Tauriel, not my type of argument. Write a rebuttal to my main claim that she does not belong and why you feel her character is enjoyable to watch.



I think her character's enjoyable to watch because she kicks ass. But that's a matter of opinion, isn't it?

As to why she belongs, there have already been plenty of posts here made about how in today's society it's detrimental to have a cast of entirely males. Tauriel, to some degree, is a step in the right direction. (Though her romance is still stupid)

But hold on a second...



> Because fantasy is one of the last escapes you will have from this harsh reality, and seeing Tolkien's work spit on is just sad. Nobody needs to correct anything Tolkien did. Sure, his work wasn't perfect, nothing is, but... the people who are butchering it are a lot less perfect at storytelling than Tolkien was. And have the wrong reasons.



I'll say this yet again, *nothing is happening to Tolkien's work*. It's not as if now the films have come out, book shops around the world will restock with versions of the Hobbit with Tauriel in them. The book won't suddenly triple in size and contain Azog. There will *always* be the book for fans and purists alike to read and enjoy in all its _untainted beauty_.

And if those people can't deal with the fact that the film changed things...



			
				Gryphos said:
			
		

> Well then, those people should probably do themselves a favour and not watch the film. Problem solved.



...and leave the film for us impurists to enjoy.


----------



## Fyle

Gryphos said:


> I think her character's enjoyable to watch because she kicks ass. But that's a matter of opinion, isn't it?
> 
> As to why she belongs, there have already been plenty of posts here made about how in today's society it's detrimental to have a cast of entirely males. Tauriel, to some degree, is a step in the right direction. (Though her romance is still stupid)
> 
> I'll say this yet again, *nothing is happening to Tolkien's work*. It's not as if now the films have come out, book shops around the world will restock with versions of the Hobbit with Tauriel in them. The book won't suddenly triple in size and contain Azog. There will *always* be the book for fans and purists alike to read and enjoy in all its _untainted beauty_.
> 
> And if those people can't deal with the fact that the film changed things...
> 
> ...and leave the film for us impurists to enjoy.



You are right that nothing happens to the books. One of my points was that it’s a shame we cannot have a movie so beautifully crafted that follows them with few major changes. That’s what’s so frustrating, if Tauriel works in the Hobbit it’s like you seem like the type of fan who thinks anyone that “kicks ass” works in anything.

You may as well just throw Mike Tyson in the Hobbit, he “kicks ass!” Throw Rambo in Star Wars Episode 7, he “kicks ass!”

Do you let "today's society" effect your own writing? If so, in what way? Please explain.

I personally do not. Fantasy worlds I create have laws based on reality I suppose, but I mean beside the basic logical functions of a world, today's society and who is reading have nothing to do with it.


----------



## Gryphos

> You are right that nothing happens to the books. One of my points was that it’s a shame we cannot have a movie so beautifully crafted that follows them with few major changes. That’s what’s so frustrating, if Tauriel works in the Hobbit it’s like you seem like the type of fan who thinks anyone that “kicks ass” works in anything.
> 
> You may as well just throw Mike Tyson in the Hobbit, he “kicks ass!” Throw Rambo in Star Wars Episode 7, he “kicks ass!”



The difference being Mike Tyson and Rambo aren't elves. They wouldn't fit with the atmosphere and world the films have created up to this point. Whereas Tauriel does fit within that world as it is presented in the films, and has the benefit of adding gender diversity. If she was also more fleshed out as a character, that would great.



> Do you let "today's society" effect your own writing? If so, in what way? Please explain.



I try to have a varied and representative cast of males and females, with women having complex personalities and not falling into any misogynistic tropes like being reliant on 'their man', etc. (unless of course that is a specific and purposeful aspect of their personality and leads to character development) Pretty simple.


----------



## Jabrosky

Fyle said:


> Do you let "today's society" effect your own writing? If so, in what way? Please explain.


I am fond of writing female characters who are warriors, in positions of power, or both. In a sense that is symptomatic of modern ideals, but not because feminists or diversity advocates forced me to write those characters at gunpoint. Rather, it's that those ideals raised me into a socially liberal guy who agrees with the core tenets of feminism (namely that women are people and deserve gender equality just like men).

Oh, and I also like writing characters who aren't all European-looking too.


----------



## Nihal

I've started to write an answer to this thread some times, but the fact that among many deviations from the source material–a considerable number of them taking away the silver lining of Bilbo's actions–, besides other characters additions and changes, it's Tauriel the single focus of complaints is very disheartening.

When you invite people to post in the thread _so_ you can ferociously pick their posts apart, giving no consideration to nothing I can't see the point of posting.

And, the heck, I don't even like Tauriel.


----------



## Steerpike

Yeah. Ignoring most counter points and repeating the same assertions over again isn't exactly a stellar defense of argument.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

To answer the question on how "today's audience" affects my writing:

Without getting into specifics about my WIP, I'm looking back at a genre I loved growing up. Now that my oldest reads chapter books, I'd love to introduce her to these kinds of books. Of course, there is the issue that the books I'm thinking of assumed the reader was a boy. My goal is to write stories that are accessible to my daughters.

When doing research, I found female bloggers who also loved the same books, so "assuming the reader is male" wasn't a complete turn-off. The research also reminds me that equity in gender representation* is writing for "yesterday's audience" as well as today's.

*such as 50% of MCs being female, for example, and/or making female MCs independent as opposed to (primarily) being tied to a male


----------



## Mindfire

...can someone please remind me what this argument is even about? It's gotten so incoherent I don't even know what side I'm on.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Mindfire said:


> ...can someone please remind me what this argument is even about? It's gotten so incoherent I don't even know what side I'm on.



Should dwarf women be depicted with or without beards?


----------



## Devor

Svrtnsse said:


> Should dwarf women be depicted with or without beards?



If people are on the wrong side of that argument, I'm going to start abusing my mod powers.


----------



## Steerpike

Svrtnsse said:


> Should dwarf women be depicted with or without beards?



Hirsutism is a biological condition. Female dwarves should be afforded reasonable accomodation under the ADA. Come to think of it, if the dwarves had simply included people with mobility issues in their party, they wouldn't have had to go sneaking around looking for the magic door into the mountain. They could simply have sued Smaug for not having accessible entrances and exits, then garnished the vast proportion of the gold he was hoarding and eventually have him thrown out on his scaled tail.


----------



## Svrtnsse

On a more serious note. I do let the world of today influence me in my writing. Probably not as much the audience as the world itself. I'm trying to write my story in a way that includes characters and events that I find interesting and appealing. I try to deal with themes that are dear to me.
I'm trying to write a story that I enjoy writing and that I can stand behind fully once its done. It's definitely influenced by the time I live in, not because I try to appeal to a certain market or strive for political correctness, but because it's part of who I am.


----------



## Amanita

Well, I've not seen the Hobbit-movie because (unlike LoTR) the book failed to grip me. This might have been because I used to be too young when I read it and it went completely against my fantasy ideas of the times, involving elves as female nature spirits among other things. The absence of female characters probably played it's part but it wasn't the only reason.
I'm extremely opposed to strong changes in book adapted for movies though. Some changes are necessary due to the different media of course but introducing completely new characters and plot lines definitely isn't. In my case, the addition of a female character doesn't help draw me to the cinema because it doesn't matter to me if I know it wasn't what the actual creator intended.
I really think directors should make their own stories if they want something different from the book and I'd really like to see a good modern fantasy movie actually made for this medium (and with well-done female characters.)

Do I let the world of today influence my writing? Since my setting is modern, yes, current events do influence the story and to some extent, the discussions about minorities did as well. I'm not worried about my female characters because I am female and don't see most of the problems many writers seem to have with female characters but in my case, the fact that I have a PoC-protagonist has been the reason for some pondering. According to online-discussions, there seems to be no way a white writer can do this without offending someone anyway. Even the question if writing non-white protagonists is presumptuous or not writing them is offensive seems to be under debate, so I've  given up on trying to avoid offending someone and focus on telling a good story instead. I do still worry about this from time to time though and wonder if turning her white wouldn't be less problematic after all.


----------



## Nihal

My question is: Why are warrior women considered something that exists exclusively for the modern world, a hype or anything like that? Why does it need to be justified?

"There weren't many women engaged in such activities in the past." Nor half-breed races are common in their universes, or the chosen ones, neither farmer boys who are secretly kings, and all those one-of-a-kind like. But no one points at them and shouts it's not believable. Yet in many stories meaningful female characters are regarded as a token of appreciation for you audience, a spare change you're handing to a beggar, so your female audience will be kept quiet.


The irony is... Did you know one of the most successful pirates of the history was a woman? When armadas of three different countries couldn't defeat her fleet the government struck a deal with her, so she'd _retire_ peacefully after years terrorizing them and leave them alone. She wasn't European/North American either.

These women existed, you just won't find them in your avarage history book. Women like that aren't not something _new_ created to cater to the modern audiences.


----------



## Jabrosky

Amanita said:


> I'm not worried about my female characters because I am female and don't see most of the problems many writers seem to have with female characters but in my case, the fact that I have a PoC-protagonist has been the reason for some pondering. According to online-discussions, there seems to be no way a white writer can do this without offending someone anyway. Even the question if writing non-white protagonists is presumptuous or not writing them is offensive seems to be under debate, so I've  given up on trying to avoid offending someone and focus on telling a good story instead. I do still worry about this from time to time though and wonder if turning her white wouldn't be less problematic after all.


I have also seen the attitude that people of European descent shouldn't write non-European characters and call bollocks on it, at least as a general principle. 

Sure, if you're writing about a real living culture outside your own, it might be difficult to avoid misrepresenting that culture if you don't have intimate familiarity with it. I for one don't have any plans to write about, say, the urban poor in 21st century Lagos, Nigeria. However, when you are writing fictional societies, or even about past societies that don't exist in unmodified form anymore, comparatively few if any people are going to correct you with the same indignation as an urban poor citizen of Lagos would if you got their culture wrong. There are no more ancient Egyptians or Dahomeans around, and there never existed Lemurians or Atlanteans.

When you remove the obligations of accurately portraying real living societies, in the end all you really have to do is develop your characters beyond one-dimensional caricatures, regardless of their skin color or whatever.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

@Nihal, the most inspiring knight in history, to me, is Jehanne Darc. I've written more than one character that was inspired by her.

(Baldhart from Dragon's Egg is one of them… which reminds me, I gotta stop keeping this topic alive so SP will stop reading this and update Dragon's Egg!)


----------



## Steerpike

Legendary Sidekick said:


> (Baldhart from Dragon's Egg is one of them… which reminds me, I gotta stop keeping this topic alive so SP will stop reading this and update Dragon's Egg!)



This explains why the lizards are gathering wood for a fire.

I'm going to update the game asap. I have the posts ready to go, but I have to find the time to sit down and make three maps


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Oh, sure… we take a path to avoid the Inquisition, and now midget lizards do in the barbarian Joan of Arc.


----------



## Fyle

Svrtnsse said:


> On a more serious note. I do let the world of today influence me in my writing. Probably not as much the audience as the world itself. I'm trying to write my story in a way that includes characters and events that I find interesting and appealing. I try to deal with themes that are dear to me.
> I'm trying to write a story that I enjoy writing and that I can stand behind fully once its done. It's definitely influenced by the time I live in, not because I try to appeal to a certain market or strive for political correctness, but because it's part of who I am.



You made me realize my question could be asked slightly different. Thanks.

I meant to ask : 

Do you let the audience / reader affect your writing? If so, to what extent?

To explain further about Tauriel, its fine she is in the movie. The problem is, her role is so big and involved with the main plot. If she had her own side story, or followed along quietly it would be much better and make more sense. She is too "headlined."

On the first trailer for the third installment she was the second character they showed after Bilbo. The level of importance they give her is the main issue.

If the movie was meant to be about her in her own spin off or something taking place in Middle Earth, I'd be fine with it. Just keep her out of the source material, or give her a small part.


----------



## Gryphos

> To explain further about Tauriel, its fine she is in the movie. The problem is, her role is so big and involved with the main plot. If she had her own side story, or followed along quietly it would be much better and make more sense. She is too "headlined."
> 
> On the first trailer for the third installment she was the second character they showed after Bilbo. The level of importance they give her is the main issue.
> 
> If the movie was meant to be about her in her own spin off or something taking place in Middle Earth, I'd be fine with it. Just keep her out of the source material, or give her a small part.



Now that is a much more reasonable stance to take compared to what the original post suggested. And, you know what, to some extent I can somewhat agree. I still absolutely believe it is important to have her present and active in the plot (not a 'small' part), but perhaps they have given her a tad more importance than strictly necessary. (And, like everyone, I still don't like the romance)


----------



## Mindfire

I just don't like her name. ...And that's it. Not sure what side that puts me on.


----------



## Jabrosky

Mindfire said:


> I just don't like her name. ...And that's it. Not sure what side that puts me on.


She's an elf. Names which sound obnoxiously pretty or elegant are perfectly in character for elves (at least if you go by genre stereotypes).


----------



## Fyle

Mindfire said:


> I just don't like her name. ...And that's it. Not sure what side that puts me on.



It puts you on the side of liking her basically. Not liking the name means you have no actual problem with her. I think the name is fine, that has nothing to do with the debate really.


----------



## Fyle

Gryphos said:


> The difference being Mike Tyson and Rambo aren't elves. They wouldn't fit with the atmosphere and world the films have created up to this point. Whereas Tauriel does fit within that world as it is presented in the films, and has the benefit of adding gender diversity. If she was also more fleshed out as a character, that would great.



Making the comment about Mike Tyson and Rambo was not literal, it was to prove the point that "kicking ass" has nothing to do with whether the character works or not.

There is no benefit to adding gender diversity in this case. This is a classic, the genders have been decided. For an original work that is written today, sure, it is a great benefit. 

She can't be more fleshed out because no one can really flesh her out except Tolkien properly, because he is the one who imagined the characters who surround her and how they would react to her. 

If we change original work so much... and move around characters so much, change genders, change endings, then what's the point of original work? George Martin may as well just submit a character list to a publisher and let the fans mix and match over the years to do all different things and have a "choose your own adventure" story.

_Sorry man, I want to see the best possible representation of Tolkien's original imagined world, I do not want to see Peter Jackson's conformed remix (or anyone elses). 
_


----------

