Tauriel

[Legendary Sidekick]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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.