Itaril

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Actually, skimming back through this thread I find "rabid" a rather apt description. I was hoping that movie makers would read the Barrow-Downs for good ideas but I confess I would be quite embarassed to find that PJ had read this thread. The old pre-LOTR-movie threads had plenty of healthy debate about what the movies might hold, but there was little venom involved, unlike this thread which consists mostly of venom.

This discussion is not up to Down's standards at all.

Here, here, Mark.

I'm not known for my great enthusiasm for the movie----but it does have to be pointed out that Tolkien himself once posited the possibility that other hands would add to his stories and some of his academic essays discuss how subsequent writers change stories (see, for example, his essay on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight).

There isn't anything necessarily wrong with adding a female character per se. If Tolkien's creation really cannot accept the inclusion of a new female character, then maybe there is something to the arguments that Tolkien has a problem with female characters.)

I might not have much faith in Jackson to create a character who belongs in Tolkien's Middle-earth, but every artist does have a right to create his own vision. (Where Jackson earns my ire is his claim that he was faithful to Middle-earth. Such a statement completely ignores he debt also to Star Wars). Until we actually see the movies, we don't know what direction he is taking. All of this is just movie hype and a way of generating buzz about the movie.

And in some ways it reminds me of the horrible vituperation visited on Amy Winehouse when she died. There are plenty of male rock stars who suffered the same affliction but they never received the vitriole she did. Why all the focus on the female character and not on the dwarves?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I'm not known for my great enthusiasm for the movie----but it does have to be pointed out that Tolkien himself once posited the possibility that other hands would add to his stories and some of his academic essays discuss how subsequent writers change stories (see, for example, his essay on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight).

I have to wonder though, whether celluloid is the medium he would have preferred for "additions", and not books.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

There isn't anything necessarily wrong with adding a female character per se. If Tolkien's creation really cannot accept the inclusion of a new female character, then maybe there is something to the arguments that Tolkien has a problem with female characters.)

A problem with female characters? How's that? Galadriel is one of the most powerful and wise in LOTR. Lúthien with Beren entered the gates of Hell and recaptured a Silmaril from an incarnate "fallen angel'.

Personally, I have no particular issue with the gender of Tauriel. I equally dislike the idea of Alfrid, another invented, unnecessary character apparently on the way along with Tauriel.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And in some ways it reminds me of the horrible vituperation visited on Amy Winehouse when she died. There are plenty of male rock stars who suffered the same affliction but they never received the vitriole she did. Why all the focus on the female character and not on the dwarves?

I don't see the parallel between this and Amy Winehouse. And why have the Dwarves not thus far been the object of vilification? Perhaps because they actually appeared in the book.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I don't see the parallel between this and Amy Winehouse. And why have the Dwarves not thus far been the object of vilification? Perhaps because they actually appeared in the book.

Well Amy Winehouse was slammed with hatred not only in life, but after too. And I think the parallel is there's some shock (and probably disgust) at the vitriol that went towards her. Let me make this parallel, Gollum (who's actor, Andy Serkis did make the addiction comparison between Gollum and the Ring). I think Gandalf put Gollum's story the best to Frodo. It's a sad story, and do people really take that much pleasure out of their hurtful language?

The actress playing Tauriel seems worried about any hate that may be swung her way by book fans for actually playing an invented character. I can't see it coming in the way of personal attacks, more of the anger seems directed towards Jackson's decision and the role itself. But then again, you see how much hate can be in a person, and the actress' worries aren't surprising.

I was a bit surprised by some of the comments, and I can still remember some of the old (but brilliantly passionate) flame wars. The surprise is more due to not what was said or whether someone likes the new character or not, but how it was said and the quality. Because it looks like an overreaction to something that...

1. Shouldn't be surprising
2. No one knows what the role Tauriel will have in the movie yet.

With regards to 1. Jackson's invented characters before and his track record shows the characters he invents play a very minimal role. Either to serve as someone's officer or to have some minimal interaction and dialogue when it's needed. It's not much different than inventing characters for a good RPG.

Jackson's already lent several interesting look-ins to the production of the movie and the dwarves. So, I've got to wonder, like Mark, why all the *boom*doom**dums* on the goblin drums, about this person?

I don't know how much of an influx in members will come when The Hobbit comes out, I mean the LOTR movies are what, already 8-10 years old? That's old enough where a whole new age of people will probably be introduced to the story for the first time and will be excited just as many of us were when the LOTR movies were in sight. Love 'em, like 'em, hate 'em, don't care about 'em....whatever, this site will probably get a boost of new and curious fans. A bit of respect and opennessto discussion over the good and bad with the new movies could go a long way to welcoming new members

[Elfchick7]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

The actress playing Tauriel seems worried about any hate that may be swung her way by book fans for actually playing an invented character. I can't see it coming in the way of personal attacks, more of the anger seems directed towards Jackson's decision and the role itself. But then again, you see how much hate can be in a person, and the actress' worries aren't surprising.

....

A bit of respect and opennessto discussion over the good and bad with the new movies could go a long way to welcoming new members

I would like to clarify my position on this matter. I have no anger/hatred/venom towards PJ, Evangeline Lilly, or anyone else, for that matter. I have no personal problem with the books having been adapted into films, or with most of the little changes that PJ made. (I realize that on that point I am a majority.) I have a great deal of respect for film as an artform, when it is well used.

That said, when I first heard of the addition of the character Itaril/Tauriel, my heart sank. I was worried that it would turn out to be something like what sadly happened to the adaptation of Prince Caspian. As I watch the behind the scenes footage and read up on PJ's facebook page, I became cautiously hopeful that, while not the book in any way, The Hobbit would turn out to be a lovely tribute to Tolkien's work that would draw in an entirely new generation.

However, I do find that all of the publicity surrounding the character of Tauriel is chipping away at my hope. Not because of Evangeline Lilly, who is handling the whole awkward situation with much grace, in my opinion, but because of the general (albeit not unfounded) assumption that many of the fans will react negatively. There are Tolkien fans who will never be pleased with any film adaptation of the books, but I do feel that as the publicity around this character grows, it invites people to ask the question, "What have they done to feel that this much damage control is necessary?"

Frankly, the reporter was rude and patronizing. That annoyed me. I moved on. The fear still remains that all of this damage control is, in fact, to prepare us for a huge detour from Tolkien's original work.

[Nerwen]

I will repeat what I've said before: there is, in principle, nothing wrong with adding more named roles to "The Hobbit"– in fact, I'd say it's necessary, in order to "flesh out" groups like the Lake Men and Wood Elves- who in the book are given very little individuality at all. And I think there has been far too much jumping to conclusions, too much wild speculation, and yes, too much venom. (Expressed, if I may say so, in what at times has been a distinctly sexist manner.) We simply don't know anything about this "Tauriel" role yet, and that's that. Superfluous? Maybe. Elven tart in a wet T-shirt? Why? PJ et al., whatever other sins they may have committed, did *not* put anyone like that in the LotR movies.

However, let's not let the reaction to the reaction get out of hand either. (The Amy Winehouse affair being a case in point, as very soon her fans were ready to scream "hater" at anyone unwilling to join in their mutual weeping-and-scar-baring fest– I copped some of that myself.) The original "Itaril" character was pretty darned worrisome, and I can see why some people are ready to fear the worst of "Tauriel". On that note, though– the "damage control" Elfchick speaks of may be more because of the general response to "Itaril", than because "Tauriel" is going to be just as bad. That is, they're in damage-control mode, all right, but perhaps it's because of damage that's happened already.

[Elfchick7]

Nerwen, you make an excellent point.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Elfchick7

I would like to clarify my position on this matter. I have no anger/hatred/venom towards PJ, Evangeline Lilly, or anyone else, for that matter. I have no personal problem with the books having been adapted into films, or with most of the little changes that PJ made. (I realize that on that point I am a majority.) I have a great deal of respect for film as an artform, when it is well used.

In some of the plays I was in there was always problems with other cast members not showing up. Sometimes it angered the director to the point where he'd boil over and rip the heads off the the ones who were coming and understood what to do. I'd sit there knowing the ones he's really upset with are the ones who wouldn't come. They were the ones who needed to hear how upset the director was, but of course never would.

This happens frequently, the ones who need to hear it often don't, or ignore. The ones who don't take it to heart because they already understood but don't want to go misunderstood. Where was I going? Oh, yeah, for my part...the clarification of your stance wasn't necessary.

I was trying to raise a more general point and not one specifically on Tauriel or any specific members criticism of the character. Although, she was part of it, because I honestly didn't understand where some of the harshness was coming from. I mean, I think a lot of book fans feared what Jackson would do to Tolkien's story before they even knew who Jackson was and before the first movie came out. After seeing what he did to the LOTR movies, there may be more fear on what he will do with The Hobbit. However, I will ask to go back to the first experience of the LOTR movies.

I left enjoyed and relieved. I was captivated by the films and relieved because I left feeling it could have been a lot worse. I think Jackson got carried away in his attempt to put his ideas in the story, when there was absolutely no reason to. There's no doubt he could have done more, but in his line of work you need an ego. It was that ego which got in the way of staying closer to the books, but it was also that ego which held off and resisted the hand that Newline wanted to stick in.

I'm not saying everyone had to leave feeling the same way I did. Whether some loved 'em or hated 'em doesn't effect me at all. Jackson's a big boy who doesn't need my defending. But, where I was getting at is, the movies drew me to the much larger Tolkien community. It's why I came here. Why have I stayed here over the years, when my interest in the films has continually dropped since my original enjoyment? Tolkien's a far more interesting chap than Jackson, and the lovely Wights waiting to welcome. So, I attempted to recall my first watching of the films after I read and was taken aback by the harshness. Realized that despite my waning interest, I did greatly enjoy them and they were what brought me to the larger Tolkien community. The Hobbit films are coming a decade later. There's going to be a whole new age group who will probably expereince the story for the first time. They will be interested and curious, and whatever one feels about the films, we shouldn't forget how excited we were when experiencing Tolkien's stories for the first time (and whether it was through Jackson's movies or not).

Yes, there are dwarves in the book, but those dwarves are not the Peter Jackson dwarves. Jackson has sexed up the dwarves--they are all pretty much hunks now--something not quite in keeping with a children's story, so it's quite possible that the double-vision of Tolkien's TH is being done away with. (And by double vision I mean its nature both as children's tale and as adult story.)~Bethberry

Thanks for the compliment on being able to read your mind, I'll try to do so again, because it's what I meant when I said I was "surprised" by some of the comments. I know this isn't want you mean about the dwarves, but what shocked me the most was some of the "oh great....more large bussomed women running around in skimpy clothes, wielding swords."

Ok. We have Xenarwen, but just step back and think of the costumes in the films, and you realize how overboard the criticism is (and this goes with as much as Jackson exaggerated stuff, I think people can get as equally as exaggerated in their criticisms). Arwen was made into an active role, but come on, she was hardly wearing anything inappropriate with wardrobe malfunctions waiting to happen as she was bouncing around on a stolen horse. Same for Eowyn, who I thought Miranda Otto was made to actually look older than the book Eowyn.

So my mind reading attempt again, yes I know this isn't what you meant about the Dwarves (it just reminded me of the criticisms that shocked me about Tauriel). Because you do raise a good point about the Dwarves getting hunked up and played by some current studly actors. However, I think of the book I'm currently reading (Game of Thrones) and how much I adore the direwolves that follow the Stark kids around. I mean, George Martin has managed to create something as sinister sounding as a direwolf, yet make them completely adorable wolfpups who cutely plod along with the Stark kids everywhere. So, in this ridiculously biased and influenced person's opinion - if Jackson can make the dwarves a motley crew of sexy eye candy, more power to him. (I Just hope we don't get a travelling carnival troupe of Gimli's, that's my fear).

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I left feeling it could have been a lot worse.

If we were all as optimistic!...

Ok. We have Xenarwen, but just step back and think of the costumes in the films, and you realize how overboard the criticism is (and this goes with as much as Jackson exaggerated stuff, I think people can get as equally as exaggerated in their criticisms). Arwen was made into an active role, but come on, she was hardly wearing anything inappropriate with wardrobe malfunctions waiting to happen as she was bouncing around on a stolen horse. Same for Eowyn, who I thought Miranda Otto was made to actually look older than the book Eowyn.

The costumes in LOTR were very well done, IMO. I think that the wet-shirt-big-bussomed-young-woman-waving-swords-around expression in this discussion talks more about the role of the character, not the appearance. Personally, when I encounter such a descritpion now, I don't visualise the skimpy-dressed girl but I think of the horror of what the character's done to the story.

So my mind reading attempt again, yes I know this isn't what you meant about the Dwarves (it just reminded me of the criticisms that shocked me about Tauriel). Because you do raise a good point about the Dwarves getting hunked up and played by some current studly actors. However, I think of the book I'm currently reading (Game of Thrones) and how much I adore the direwolves that follow the Stark kids around. I mean, George Martin has managed to create something as sinister sounding as a direwolf, yet make them completely adorable wolfpups who cutely plod along with the Stark kids everywhere. So, in this ridiculously biased and influenced person's opinion - if Jackson can make the dwarves a motley crew of sexy eye candy, more power to him. (I Just hope we don't get a travelling carnival troupe of Gimli's, that's my fear).

Ummm.... have you seen this picture? I think "sexed up" is a good description.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

The costumes in LOTR were very well done, IMO. I think that the wet-shirt-big-bussomed-young-woman-waving-swords-around expression in this discussion talks more about the role of the character, not the appearance. Personally, when I encounter such a descritpion now, I don't visualise the skimpy-dressed girl but I think of the horror of what the character's done to the story.

But making that "wet tshirt warrior" criticism is at best an innocent exaggeration for effect and at worst is deliberately misleading.

Ummm.... have you seen this picture? I think "sexed up" is a good description.

I don't believe I disagreed with this, I said if direwolves can be made into adorable bundles of furry cuddliness, than Jackson's attempt to sex up the dwarves....go for it, not a big deal. A bigger issue I'd have is getting 13 movie Gimli's instead of 13 differing dwarves of different backgrounds, experiences and personalities.

[Bêthberry]

Sorry for a tardy reply. Real life and all that . . .

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I have to wonder though, whether celluloid is the medium he would have preferred for "additions", and not books.

Tolkien mentions song and music, so despite his hesitation (stated elsewhere) over drama, any art form which incorporates song and music must have been within his terms of reference. And despite my general dislike of the trilogy, I have to admit that the music is one of its superb points (nods to fellow Canuck Howard Shore ).

A problem with female characters? How's that? Galadriel is one of the most powerful and wise in LOTR. Lúthien with Beren entered the gates of Hell and recaptured a Silmaril from an incarnate "fallen angel'.

I had used the conditional rather than the declarative in my original post. And all I was meaning was that there is almost an anti-female edge to the venom the Itaril character is receiving. The numbers of Tolkien scholars and fans who defend against the accusations about his poor depiction of women is legion. See the several chapters, for instance, in Alex Lewis's and Elizabeth Currie's Uncharted Realms of Tolkien which address this issue at length. (Lewis is, if I am not mistaken, a former Chair of the Tolkien Society.)

I don't see the parallel between this and Amy Winehouse.

Boro has done an excellent job of reading my mind and explaining the parallel.

And why have the Dwarves not thus far been the object of vilification? Perhaps because they actually appeared in the book.

Yes, there are dwarves in the book, but those dwarves are not the Peter Jackson dwarves. Jackson has sexed up the dwarves--they are all pretty much hunks now--something not quite in keeping with a children's story, so it's quite possible that the double-vision of Tolkien's TH is being done away with. (And by double vision I mean its nature both as children's tale and as adult story.)

[Galadriel55]

In reply to those posts that talk about gender problems:

I have no issue with the gender by itself. I have an issue with Xena-ing the role. I recall reading (in different places, too) that the character showed good fighting skills at an early age, and because of that was appointed to be one of the King's guards. Moreover, she's supposed to fall in love with an Elven Lord (guess who ). I think this will be just as bad as the Xenarwen of LOTR (minor character, sure, but does enough damage).