Tauriel! PJ's character addition

The Hobbit is in production as 3 separate films, and will be released 1 year apart, with the first due December 2012. Head in to discuss your thoughts and reactions, and post any questions you might have about these films.

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby Salmacis81 » Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:52 pm

Minardil wrote:
Gimli's adoration for Galadriel is very much based on the 'courtly love' model


I think "courtly love" is a good description, but remember that eroticism constrained and denied by the demands duty, the traditions of chivalry, and the limitations imposed by differing stations are a central part of the "courtly love" model. The Knight DESIRES the Queen or at least has romantic love for her, but his duty to the King forbids him from acting on that desire, so he goes on impossible quests and bears her favor and wins tournaments in her honor instead. That sounds like a pretty good description of Gimli's affection for Galadriel.

The argument that Fili is a gorilla and that it is somehow "impossible" for Dwarves and Elves to feel attraction towards each other is just completely wrong.


It's no more wrong than implying that it's a fairly normal thing (which is what PJ's films have done in a way).

Anyway, what completely burns me up about this whole Tauriel/Kili affair is that it was GIMLI who's stance was supposed to be softened toward the Elves, after becoming enamoured of Galadriel and befriending Legolas. It was a major part of Gimli's character arc, and was portrayed (at least in the book) as a thing never before heard of. It's part of what made Gimli a special character. The "three golden hairs" scene on the boat, with Legolas's subsequent reaction, remains one of my favorite parts of the entire LotR trilogy. The Kili/Tauriel nonsense, by contrast, makes me roll my eyes every time I see it. Now people are going to see these films in chronological order and think that Kili, instead of Gimli, was the first Dwarf who was able to overcome millenia of hostility between Dwarves and Elves. They've neutered Gimli's character arc by including this Kili foolishness.
User avatar
Salmacis81
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 6:32 am
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby lotrjw » Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:19 am

Salmacis81 wrote:
Minardil wrote:
Gimli's adoration for Galadriel is very much based on the 'courtly love' model


I think "courtly love" is a good description, but remember that eroticism constrained and denied by the demands duty, the traditions of chivalry, and the limitations imposed by differing stations are a central part of the "courtly love" model. The Knight DESIRES the Queen or at least has romantic love for her, but his duty to the King forbids him from acting on that desire, so he goes on impossible quests and bears her favor and wins tournaments in her honor instead. That sounds like a pretty good description of Gimli's affection for Galadriel.

The argument that Fili is a gorilla and that it is somehow "impossible" for Dwarves and Elves to feel attraction towards each other is just completely wrong.


It's no more wrong than implying that it's a fairly normal thing (which is what PJ's films have done in a way).

Anyway, what completely burns me up about this whole Tauriel/Kili affair is that it was GIMLI who's stance was supposed to be softened toward the Elves, after becoming enamoured of Galadriel and befriending Legolas. It was a major part of Gimli's character arc, and was portrayed (at least in the book) as a thing never before heard of. It's part of what made Gimli a special character. The "three golden hairs" scene on the boat, with Legolas's subsequent reaction, remains one of my favorite parts of the entire LotR trilogy. The Kili/Tauriel nonsense, by contrast, makes me roll my eyes every time I see it. Now people are going to see these films in chronological order and think that Kili, instead of Gimli, was the first Dwarf who was able to overcome millenia of hostility between Dwarves and Elves. They've neutered Gimli's character arc by including this Kili foolishness.


That's a very good point, it shove's the Kili/Tauriel love story from something that's just very annoying to ridiculous.
lotrjw
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2014 3:33 am
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby Ladykat » Fri Jan 23, 2015 10:30 pm

If they wanted a romance, or more to the point, a Doomed Love Affair, :P what was wrong with a Tauriel-Logolas connection? So the Elf maiden falls in love with an Elf-lord of Mirkwood instead of Rivendell. Other than that it seems to meet the criteria perfectly. Thranduil pretty much told Tauriel "You're not good enough for my son, so don't even think about it." Add to that their conflicting views about fighting evil----Thranduil was content just to keep his kingdom safe, Tauriel wanted to go out into the world and fight it to keep it from spreading. Stick Legolas in the middle of that with his love for Tauriel and his love (maybe) or at least his loyalty and duty to his Father and King, and there you have it. Shakespeare couldn't have written it better. :wink: :D .

And for those of you who say that that would meant Tauriel would have to die because Legolas never married, I say not necessarily. She was banished from Mirkwood, so she could have went to Lothlorien or Rivendell while Legolas was tramping around in the Wild looking for Strider.

That scenario would have made a lot more sense and been a lot more believable than the forced Elf-Dwarf "romance" PJ or whoever cooked up.

Just my opinion. :D

LK
Image
User avatar
Ladykat
Between the Worlds of Men and Make Believe I Can be Found


 
Posts: 9584
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2002 9:56 am
Location: Resident in good standing of The Twilight Zone
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby heliona » Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:24 pm

Lalaith-Elerrina wrote:She’s only around 600, very young for an elf, and roughly the equivalent of about 20 in our years, yet she was the captain of the guard.


Just a correction on this point. I've just watched the extended edition of DoS this weekend, and Tauriel is at least 700, because Legolas says that Thranduil had trusted her for over 700 years (or words to that effect, I can't remember the exact wording). Also, she is referred to as a captain of the guard, not the captain, which means she might be a junior one, so to speak.

Ladykat, I like that idea. :)
Image<-- Merry Christmas!

Life is short; break the rules, forgive quickly; kiss slowly; love truly; laugh uncontrollably; and never regret anything that made you smile. Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.

Grab a chance and you won't be sorry for the might-have-beens. - Arthur Ransome

Just because I have the vocabulary of a well-educated sailor doesn't mean I'm not a lady.

In Memoriam EDW - March 14th 2009
In Memoriam rowanberry - March 1st 2014 (~In Memoriam AHH - Alfred Lord Tennyson~)

Photos: My Flickr Photo Collections & Wee Nell - the furry ball of mischief!


(I occasionally post as White Shadow - you've been warned!)

New posters, there's a Welcome and Comprehensive Guide to the Messageboard to answer your questions.
User avatar
heliona
The Sexy One ~ Hellaciously Huggable
 
Posts: 10508
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 11:14 am
Location: Atop a sunny hill
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby LleuLlewGyffes » Tue Jan 27, 2015 7:52 pm

And for those of you who say that that would meant Tauriel would have to die because Legolas never married, I say not necessarily.

Not necessarily, but certainly narratively effective. Rather than have the stereotypical emotive female weeping over the death of the male she fell in love with, how much more effective would it have been for a heroine fighting and dying, to be grieved over by the male that loves her?
LleuLlewGyffes
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:24 pm
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby Ladykat » Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:01 pm

LleuLlewGyffes wrote:Not necessarily, but certainly narratively effective. Rather than have the stereotypical emotive female weeping over the death of the male she fell in love with, how much more effective would it have been for a heroine fighting and dying, to be grieved over by the male that loves her?


Yes, very good! It would also give Legolas a better reason to not want to return to Mirkwood.

LK
Image
User avatar
Ladykat
Between the Worlds of Men and Make Believe I Can be Found


 
Posts: 9584
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2002 9:56 am
Location: Resident in good standing of The Twilight Zone
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby LegoLyss » Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:43 pm

I am glad that the character Tauriel was created for these movies. The Hobbit novel was amazing but definitely lacking in feminine power. Tauriel represents courage and strength and is a formidable warrior, reminiscent of Eowyn in LOTR. She also shows the softness of human (or elf rather) emotion. I respect Peter Jackson for making a point of adding a female supporting role to the franchise. He gave more screen time to Eowyn and Arwen in LOTR, and of course Galdriel, another powerful female character in both movie series. Another thing I love about Tauriel is that (unlike in some other movies) she was not overly sexualized or dressed provactively. She was beautiful in her own way, but her power came from within, not feminine wiles or seduction.
User avatar
LegoLyss
Petitioner to the Council
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 2:00 pm
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby solicitr » Mon Feb 02, 2015 5:37 pm

LegoLyss wrote:I am glad that the character Tauriel was created for these movies. The Hobbit novel was amazing but definitely lacking in feminine power. Tauriel represents courage and strength and is a formidable warrior, reminiscent of Eowyn in LOTR. She also shows the softness of human (or elf rather) emotion. I respect Peter Jackson for making a point of adding a female supporting role to the franchise. He gave more screen time to Eowyn and Arwen in LOTR, and of course Galdriel, another powerful female character in both movie series. Another thing I love about Tauriel is that (unlike in some other movies) she was not overly sexualized or dressed provactively. She was beautiful in her own way, but her power came from within, not feminine wiles or seduction.



So now aesthetics are subject to affirmative action?
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby LegoLyss » Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:10 am

solicitr wrote:So now aesthetics are subject to affirmative action?


Of course not. I sort of digressed onto a subject that I have taken issue with in many movies and video games, where the female warrior would be dressed with ample cleavage or in a leather body suit, while the men were dressed normal and were taken more seriously. Asthetics and being sexulaized are not the same thing. Arwen is gorgeous and very feminine but she still isn't cast as eye candy for men.
But like I said, this really has nothing to do with the topic. I was simply stating why I love Tauriel (and the female characters in general) in these movies.
User avatar
LegoLyss
Petitioner to the Council
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 2:00 pm
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby Naeth Dúlinn » Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:43 pm

Well my opinion of Tauriel is based on my opinion of viewing movies based on books as separate pieces of art. Tauriel I think was a useless character in the overall story. I personally dislike the addition in the sense of looking at it in a purist sense. But I think adding Tauriel maybe added more flesh to the movie?
User avatar
Naeth Dúlinn
Petitioner to the Council
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 6:43 pm
Location: Gondolin
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby Diamond of Long Cleeve » Thu Feb 05, 2015 4:22 am

LleuLlewGyffes wrote:Not necessarily, but certainly narratively effective. Rather than have the stereotypical emotive female weeping over the death of the male she fell in love with, how much more effective would it have been for a heroine fighting and dying, to be grieved over by the male that loves her?


Totally agree. That would have been SO much better.

I like Tauriel :) but am glad she didn't get killed off. It would have distracted from the canon deaths, IMO.

LegoLyss wrote:
solicitr wrote:So now aesthetics are subject to affirmative action?


Of course not. I sort of digressed onto a subject that I have taken issue with in many movies and video games, where the female warrior would be dressed with ample cleavage or in a leather body suit, while the men were dressed normal and were taken more seriously. Asthetics and being sexulaized are not the same thing. Arwen is gorgeous and very feminine but she still isn't cast as eye candy for men.


Well answered! 8)
User avatar
Diamond of Long Cleeve
Mariner

 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 12:00 am
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby solicitr » Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:28 pm

But in what way does Tauriel bring "feminine power" to the movie? Except for the (unnecessary and rather silly) romance business, her gender has nothing at all to do with the character, who could just as well have been male or hermaphrodite for all it actually mattered.
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby LegoLyss » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:31 pm

solicitr wrote:But in what way does Tauriel bring "feminine power" to the movie? Except for the (unnecessary and rather silly) romance business, her gender has nothing at all to do with the character, who could just as well have been male or hermaphrodite for all it actually mattered.

Her being a strong, warrior woman (or she-elf) is what brought the feminine power to the movie. We saw plenty of acts of heroism, fortitude and bravery amongst the male characters of the Hobbit franchise, and it was refreshing to see those same attributes in a female. Given the time period, women those days were given very low expectations and didn't take part in battles. So many times women were depicted as damsels in distress waiting for their prince to come and save them from the villains. Tauriel fought right along side her romantic interest. She fought for the protection of her "people" (elves). The "silly" romance showed that her love could transcend deeply rooted prejudices between the dwarves and elves. I think it added another layer to the story.
User avatar
LegoLyss
Petitioner to the Council
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 2:00 pm
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby Aredhel Ar-Feiniel » Sun Feb 22, 2015 12:12 pm

I was personally more forgiving towards the changes that were made to The Hobbit rather than the ones made to LotR. The Hobbit was his first published book and therefore I think there were many holes that Peter Jackson managed to fill. A lot of things were plausible, like Tauriel - especially Legolas's presence in Mirkwood during these events - since the history wasn't fully developed yet... heck, he didn't even know the Elvenking's name yet! :) I wasn't fond of the Tauriel-Kili romance since it all seemed too forced and rushed, and unnatural. But Tauriel herself being there didn't bother me too much.
User avatar
Aredhel Ar-Feiniel
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:47 am
Location: Gondolin
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby solicitr » Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:31 pm

LegoLyss wrote:
solicitr wrote:But in what way does Tauriel bring "feminine power" to the movie? Except for the (unnecessary and rather silly) romance business, her gender has nothing at all to do with the character, who could just as well have been male or hermaphrodite for all it actually mattered.

Her being a strong, warrior woman (or she-elf) is what brought the feminine power to the movie. We saw plenty of acts of heroism, fortitude and bravery amongst the male characters of the Hobbit franchise, and it was refreshing to see those same attributes in a female. Given the time period, women those days were given very low expectations and didn't take part in battles. So many times women were depicted as damsels in distress waiting for their prince to come and save them from the villains. Tauriel fought right along side her romantic interest. She fought for the protection of her "people" (elves). The "silly" romance showed that her love could transcend deeply rooted prejudices between the dwarves and elves. I think it added another layer to the story.


In other words, 21st century political notions imposed anachronistically- and yet it has nothing to do with "feminine power." Swinging a sword ain't it, that's just being a man with boobs. Something far closer to "feminine power" was added (and then screwed up) by PJ with Galadriel
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby LleuLlewGyffes » Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:53 pm

solicitr wrote:In other words, 21st century political notions imposed anachronistically- and yet it has nothing to do with "feminine power." Swinging a sword ain't it, that's just being a man with boobs. Something far closer to "feminine power" was added (and then screwed up) by PJ with Galadriel

Quite right! Tauriel was an archetypal male character made superficially female. And yet, even with this clunking, forced "girl power", the screenplay couldn't achieve the most limited requirements of the Bechdel test.

Tauriel was a simple love interest, and a rather insipid love interest at that.

Now, if Peter Jackson had really wanted to flag up his feminist credentials, rather than inventing the widower Bard, he should have made he a she...

And Alfrid, who I found irritating beyond endurance, could have been a notable "Lady Macbeth" character, pushing and goading a weak-willed Master.

However, my impression is that strong female characters who are less than good do not fulfil the proscriptive requirements of contemporary feministas, evil men and saintly women being the preferred fantasy.
LleuLlewGyffes
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:24 pm
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby Diamond of Long Cleeve » Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:29 am

LleuLlewGyffes wrote:However, my impression is that strong female characters who are less than good do not fulfil the proscriptive requirements of contemporary feministas, evil men and saintly women being the preferred fantasy.


Oh, Lord ... :lol:

C'mon, let's have some actual examples of 'evil men and saintly women', from a film or TV series you've seen recently, preferably written by a 'feminista'.

This 'feminista' likes strong female characters in all sorts of shades and with all sorts of different personalities.
User avatar
Diamond of Long Cleeve
Mariner

 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 12:00 am
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby Frelga » Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:22 am

I would like to hear more about what makes Tauriel an archetypal male character. Hint: being a warrior doesn't count. Every culture has a tradition of female warriors, as discussed in another recent thread

I do think that not explicitly mentioning more female elf warriors was a rare case of Tolkien not thinking things through. Elves are not limited to a few decades of fertility and have few children, so there's no reason for their females to be absent from any sphere of life in favor of child raising.

It also amuses me that everyone is talking about Tauriel having a romantic subplot (which was rubbish writing, to be fair) and no one mentions Legolas getting one (also rubbish writing). Everyone knows Gimli is his true love.
Image
"You start running they'll never let you stop. You stand up, push back... Can't say no forever right?"
―Steve Rogers, Captain America: The First Avenger
User avatar
Frelga
GNU Terry Pratchett

 
Posts: 9221
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:05 pm
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby portia » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:33 am

I am not upset by the "romantic elements of Tauriel, until the end.

Attraction between Legolas and Tauriel is not a big deal, especially since they both know that Thranduil is not letting it go anywhere. Also an attraction between Tauriel and Kili is just the normal sort of interest for a very different being. The whole business about Tauriel being so upset at Kili's loss is not characteristic for a warrior elf.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby solicitr » Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:41 am

Frelga wrote:I would like to hear more about what makes Tauriel an archetypal male character. Hint: being a warrior doesn't count. Every culture has a tradition of female warriors, as discussed in another recent thread

I do think that not explicitly mentioning more female elf warriors was a rare case of Tolkien not thinking things through. Elves are not limited to a few decades of fertility and have few children, so there's no reason for their females to be absent from any sphere of life in favor of child raising.


Of all the things Tolkien was, "feminist" isn't one of them. His letters make this abundantly clear. He does tell us, fairly explicitly, that Elven women could and did fight in defense of their homes and children; ejusdem generis they were not 'warriors' as an occupation.

And while it is true that many cultures' bodies of myth/legend have female warriors sprinkled around (although not "all," and certainly not the Anglo-Saxons), they are always held out as oddities, exceptions: Eowyn occupies this role. After all, in real-life historical societies war was a strictly male occupation, and the occasional Joan of Arc generally didn't end well. "Hint: being a warrior doesn't count. Every culture has a tradition of female warriors"- but serving as Captain of Thranduil's Guard, apparently without a raised eyebrow in sight?

Again,"everything men can do women can do too" is a very modern (post-1970) notion.
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby ngaur » Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:58 am

I think Frelga touches the real problems of Tauriel when she observes that they are essentially the same as the problems with Legolas. Neither character, if so they deserve to be called, is an improvement to the Hobbit, although the concept of female warriors might have been interesting in another context and another movie.

However..

I do think that not explicitly mentioning more female elf warriors was a rare case of Tolkien not thinking things through.


Actually I would say it was entirely conscious and deliberate. He was trying to capture the feel of an historical and heroic age wherein women as a rule weren't warriors. ( At least if we may put faith their chroniclers who presumably were male, but I will pass that. ) Tolkien makes it implicit that women in ME did not pursue battle by remarking how extraordinary it was that the women of Haleth had fighting Amazons, and by the exceptional event of Eowyn at the Pelennor.



The whole business about Tauriel being so upset at Kili's loss is not characteristic for a warrior elf.


I should wan't to say there's no such thing as a warrior-elf, but on assumption that the term may stand, what would you say are the typical characterisitcs for a warrior elf?
User avatar
ngaur
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 3948
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 1:55 am
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby portia » Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:45 am

I would say that a "warrior elf" is an elf who takes up war/fighting/guarding as an occupation, as opposed to food production, construction, education, brewing or other non fighting occupations. I do not think that the elves followed the Marine Corps rule that "everyone is a rifleman."
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby solicitr » Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:26 pm

So-- were the Raft-Elves mobilized when Thranduil marched on Erebor with his army? Was there a fyrd arrangement?
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby portia » Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:51 pm

Can't help you on that one. As far as I could tell, they were conjured up out of thin air. There were far too many elves in that army for Thranduil's people to support. It was bizarre.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby Frelga » Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:14 am

As far as I can tell, Mirkwood Elves were hunter-gatherers and traders, so maybe they followed the nomadic model and everyone WAS a rifleman. Tolkien was not that into the Elven economics, and Jackson even less, so who knows.

ngaur, you made some points I wanted to discuss further, but don't have the time to write them out. I'll be back. :D
Image
"You start running they'll never let you stop. You stand up, push back... Can't say no forever right?"
―Steve Rogers, Captain America: The First Avenger
User avatar
Frelga
GNU Terry Pratchett

 
Posts: 9221
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:05 pm
Top

Re: Tauriel! PJ's character addition

Postby Billobob » Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:15 am

I do not think that the elves confined themselves to builders or hunters/warriors since almost all elves in the books and movies could fight so it makes sense that everyone (except maybe children which were rare) would fight.
User avatar
Billobob
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1042
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:50 am
Location: Greenwood the Great.
Top

Previous

Return to Movies - The Hobbit

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest