The Hobbit Movie Trailer!

[Dilettante]

All of you previous took the words right out of my mouth. Martin Freeman looks like a Hobbit, I said that to myself when I first saw him. He looks more like a Hobbit than Elijah Wood ever did.

Originally Posted by Eönwë

He looks like Watson to me.

*cough* Ok, well, that too, but in context of Middle-Earth, he looks like a Hobbit. Watson has a Hobbit in his family tree somewhere.

I saw The Hobbit movie trailer over Christmas and squealed with delight, despite some of it's flaws, it looks magnificent. I LOVE the Dwarves' song in Bag End.

The Dwarves do look a little too handsome, not that Dwarves are supposed to be ugly! I never mean that. My pet peeve with Hollywood these days is that it tends to hire actors for their looks rather than their acting ability, and this may be another example of that.

I am almost certain that the scene between Galadriel and Gandalf is innocuous. Don't make be bring up the whole Too-Much-Arwen song and dance again. Is she going to ride through Mirkwood with the Dwarves? I hope PJ hasn't thrown in some romance just because modern writers/producers think they need romance to tell a good story. And I am not necessarily referring to Galadriel/Gandalf. I mean throwing in any random Elf/Dwarf/Hobbit maiden to add some romantic tension.

What I want to know is: Why is Galadriel there in the first place? Because there were not enough women in the original story? Because they could not get Hugo Weaving in as Elrond so PJ gave Galadriel the part instead?

[Pomegranate]

I didn't read the whole topic, but just have to comment on the last post: in fact, there is not a single named female character in the whole book as far as I can recall (not among the actually active characters, anyway). In a book it is not that significant, especially given the time when it was made, but a movie in the present world with no women at all would definitely be extraordinary. It could be interesting, and would be more canon and more right especially to us who can pretty much cite the book by heart, but I guess the movie is not just for us. But I agree with you in the wishes for no added romantic tension, it would feel... wrong.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Dilettante

I am almost certain that the scene between Galadriel and Gandalf is innocuous.

But can a character do something arguably outnocuous and simply claim that it's in

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

My secret hope for this trailer, to say nothing of the film itself, is that it rouses a few slumbering wights and draws them from their barrows to caper on the Downs once more...

Well, your wish is granted, in my case at least - but indeed it was not the Hobbit that brought me back here at all, rather vice versa - I knew somewhere in the back of my mind it was being filmed, increased activeness on the Downs brought me to see the actual trailer

And with regards to the trailer - I haven't noticed any Smaug, is it that they didn't yet have one drawn?

[Dilettante]

Originally Posted by Galin

But can a character do something arguably outnocuous and simply claim that it's in

Heh, point taken. That was a good one.

I didn't read the whole topic, but just have to comment on the last post: in fact, there is not a single named female character in the whole book as far as I can recall (not among the actually active characters, anyway). In a book it is not that significant, especially given the time when it was made, but a movie in the present world with no women at all would definitely be extraordinary. It could be interesting, and would be more canon and more right especially to us who can pretty much cite the book by heart, but I guess the movie is not just for us. But I agree with you in the wishes for no added romantic tension, it would feel... wrong.

Rubbish! There's plenty of women in The Hobbit. There's uhh......well what about...no....and then there's uh.....or....hmmmm.....How about?....no, that's no good.

Bilbo's mother is mentioned several times, and I bet some of Beorn's animals were female! And the wolves! Maybe there was a female wolf or two! ....What?......

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pomegranate

In a book it is not that significant, especially given the time when it was made, but a movie in the present world with no women at all would definitely be extraordinary.

I thought that was their reason for making a part for Legolas.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Dilettante

Bilbo's mother is mentioned several times, and I bet some of Beorn's animals were female!

You raise a good point: there were thousands and thousands of females on Beorn's property, making his life sweeter every day.



That's the buzz anyway

[Lalwendë]

Um, Lobelia Sackville-Baggins?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Um, Lobelia Sackville-Baggins?

Imagine Blanchett playing that one!

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

And with regards to the trailer - I haven't noticed any Smaug, is it that they didn't yet have one drawn?

They are maximising profits by padding it out into two films. No Smaug til film2.

[Galadriel55]

I just saw this very trailer in the movie theatre, in 3D. It looks much better there than on my computer screen, that's a plus on the technical side. (The content, obviously, didn't change )

[Galadriel]

http://www.theonering.net/

So. Tauriel is a warrior. Head of the guard. I knew it. Making a woman strong without giving her a weapon is impossible for filmmakers.

[narfforc]

So we have Marvel meets Middle-earth now in the form of Taurielektra..... pathetic..

[Galin]

No Necrodancer then? But wait, she wouldn't reveal that!

Excelsior!

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

http://www.theonering.net/

So. Tauriel is a warrior. Head of the guard. I knew it. Making a woman strong without giving her a weapon is impossible for filmmakers.

"Deadly" and "lethal". See, that's why her role upsets me the most. She's such a Mary Sue she doesn't even deserve to be named after Merisu. Knows how to wield any weapon, she does. Has purple eyes too, I bet.

[Oddwen]

Has anyone ever played Seirra's The Hobbit game for pc and consoles? There's a lady elf character in there who Bilbo rescues from the troll caves, and who then helps Bilbo into the caves of the Elvenking and with several quests therin. I'm hoping that Tauriel fits somewhere along those lines.

She'll probably be the Head Elf in charge of the hunt for the white stag, or she'll rescue the dwarves from the spiders or capture the party-crashing dwarves or something.

Originally Posted by Galin

Necrodancer

Heee.

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by narfforc

So we have Marvel meets Middle-earth now in the form of Taurielektra..... pathetic..

Ouch!

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by Galin

Necrodancer !

{Elton John Voice}Hold me closer, Necro Dancer... wait... ewwww......{/Elton John Voice}

[Oddwen]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

{Elton John Voice}Hold me closer, Necro Dancer... wait... ewwww......{/Elton John Voice}

...count the Nazgul on the Greenwaaaaaaay...

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Oddwen

Has anyone ever played Seirra's The Hobbit game for pc and consoles? There's a lady elf character in there who Bilbo rescues from the troll caves, and who then helps Bilbo into the caves of the Elvenking and with several quests therin. I'm hoping that Tauriel fits somewhere along those lines.

She'll probably be the Head Elf in charge of the hunt for the white stag, or she'll rescue the dwarves from the spiders or capture the party-crashing dwarves or something.

Or she will rescue the Dwarves from the Spiders and the Halls both, lead Thranduil's host together with Legolas, fall in love with him, shoot Smaug, save the Five Legions, and do all kinds of things she's not supposed to be doing. Like as not the audience will be crying for her death instead of Thorin's.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Like as not the audience will be crying for her death instead of Thorin's.

I know I will be.

[Eruhen]

Kuru, I think G55 means "weeping because she died", not "clamouring with pitchforks".

Although I do plan to bring a pitchfork and a torch to the theatre...

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by The very model of a modern Elvish Mary-Sue

And she’s lethal and deadly.

Both lethal and deadly? Meaning she can not only kill you but also slay you, do you in and finish you? I'm trembling.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Eruhen

Kuru, I think G55 means "weeping because she died", not "clamouring with pitchforks".

Yes, I do. Personally I'll be full of glee when she dies - the sooner the better. Muahahahahahah!!!!!

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

"Deadly" and "lethal". See, that's why her role upsets me the most. She's such a Mary Sue she doesn't even deserve to be named after Merisu. Knows how to wield any weapon, she does. Has purple eyes too, I bet.

Purple? Nah, they'll change colour when she's angry - then everyone can see how goddess-like she is. I bet the Dwarves will unjustly insult her for being a woman and head of the guard and then she'll throw them in the dungeons (at Thranduil's order).

Sigh.

Am I overreacting?

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Dilettante

Rubbish! There's plenty of women in The Hobbit. There's uhh......well what about...no....and then there's uh.....or....hmmmm.....How about?....no, that's no good.

They don't HAVE to make every woman a warrior-princess, though. That and the ugly old hag are not the only roles women can play. Why can't they just make her an interesting attendant, or a counsellor? Something a little intellectual or emotional rather than I'M LITTLE MS. KICK-YOUR-BACKSIDE AND I'M SO ICKLE-CLEVER THAT I CAN TRACK BETTER THAN ARAGORN!

Sorry.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Eruhen

Kuru, I think G55 means "weeping because she died", not "clamouring with pitchforks".

Although I do plan to bring a pitchfork and a torch to the theatre...

Oops.

[Pervinca Took]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

For me, many of the problems with LotR stem from, in my humble opinion, a miscast Elijah Wood. Just imagining Freeman in the Frodo role in the original films takes them up to a whole new level for me.

My thoughts exactly! But I think it was really more down to the role being, both from the outset and throughout, badly written, badly conceived and badly directed.

Martin Freeman in those scenes reminds me very much of the character of Frodo as I see him. Also, Gandalf seems to be having a "rather more compassionate than canon" conversation with Bilbo about the fact that he may not come back from the quest. That, too, is more in spirit with "The Shadow Of The Past" than the style of "Very amusing for me, very good for you, and profitable, too, if you ever get over it." I didn't really expect the "style" of The Hobbit to transfer to the films (it didn't with PJ's LOTR either) - but it seems to work better here. I wasn't able to love PJ's LOTR. I think I might like this better, though. The dwarves' song seems to hit the right notes, too (in both senses of the word).

[Dilettante]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

They don't HAVE to make every woman a warrior-princess, though. That and the ugly old hag are not the only roles women can play. Why can't they just make her an interesting attendant, or a counsellor? Something a little intellectual or emotional rather than I'M LITTLE MS. KICK-YOUR-BACKSIDE AND I'M SO ICKLE-CLEVER THAT I CAN TRACK BETTER THAN ARAGORN!

Sorry.

Agreed. As soon as it was confirmed there would be a Hobbit movie, I predicted there would be some sort of Mary-Sue Arwen-on-steroids warrior princess character. I hoped I was wrong. It looks like I was not.

If there has to be a woman role then I think a better (and even more imaginative and less predicable role) perhaps would have been an attendant or counsellor. Perhaps one that was wise and beautiful (rather than wise and old and shriveled, because beauty and brains can go together) and dared to speak against Thranduil imprisoning the dwarves rather than sending them on their way.

The motion picture industry for years has been laboring under the delusion that the audience needs a character they can relate to. Women need a strong woman role (especially someone who worries about their love interest or child) to relate to a story, children and teenagers need someone their age in the story they can relate to. I have read many books and seen many movies and TV shows over the years that have had none or at least very little children or (now at my age) female roles in them and had no trouble at all relating to the characters in the story. I believe that people can relate to a character that is totally unlike them, but Hollywood won't give them a chance.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Dilettante

The motion picture industry for years has been laboring under the delusion that the audience needs a character they can relate to. Women need a strong woman role (especially someone who worries about their love interest or child) to relate to a story, children and teenagers need someone their age in the story they can relate to.

Hollywood nonesense, as you said. What especially bothers me is the "strong female character" trend.

Recently I watched a really bad movie (called Special Forces) with a nauseatingly "strong" female character. And the audience was meant to cheer for her and pity her and etc. I laughed because the way she played heroine was so fake and over the top and all the men around her made into such idiot blundering babies by the script that it's impossible to take the whole movie seriously anymore.

In that movie the woman was the main character. Luckily for us, Bilbo has that one, and Martin Freeman won't fall into the mud. I hope that as a secondary character Itaril/Tauriel won't be as bad.


Now before you all jump on me, I'm not a hypocrite. There are some good characters that go on even when they can't anymore (like our dead Frodo), but there are those whose roles are blowing this heroism up into enormous proportions. Those who saw Special Forces know what I mean (but if you didn't - save your sanity and don't).

[narfforc]

I recently watched The Eagle, a film which had virtually no female roles in it whatsoever. This did not spoil the film for me at all, for there was no reason for any female lead role in it. Now I am not saying that films don't need women, of course they do, but in the right context. I do not think that beefing up a female serves any purpose, yes they can fight, there are many female boxers, martial artists and servicewomen who are tough, however they are not tougher than the men. Chauvinist! I hear the screams, I am sorry but it remains a truth, physically a woman is inferior to a man in battle, where things level out is in the grey matter, women are just as intelligent, if not more so in some cases than men. I did not like the treatment of Eowyn's speech to The Witch-king, they took away all the power of her love and devotion to her King, and replaced it with the feminist drawl of ''I am no MAN'', if she'd have puked after saying that word I would not have been surprised, she is a SHIELD-MAID of Rohan, a woman trained to fight, of course she's not a man, but she had more respect for them than that. You could see the way their minds were working when they contemplated sending Arwen to lead the elves to Helms Deep, they desperately want a huge heroine to stand forth. Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens were responsible for the male character assassinations in LotR's and the overemphasizing of Arwen's role. In the LotR's the leader of the Orc-band who captured Merry and Pippin was Ugluk, so why did we need a completely different character in Lurtz?. The same with this character Tauriel .....if they want a strong female character in these films, why not use the one they have at hand, Galadriel (Nerwen) the Man-maiden, I would rather see her in battle than some form of Middle-earth meets Marvel Taurielektra. In Galadriel there is the perfect example of the warrior woman, tall, strong, beautiful and intelligent, and an history which proves it. It has often upset me why she was not acclaimed The High-queen of The Noldor, seeing as Elrond didn't use any title and she was (apart from Maglor) the only remaining grandchild of Finwe left alive in Middle-earth.

[Dilettante]

The Eagle! That was such a great movie! I saw it a few months ago and was very impressed with the whole thing, the story, the acting, and the cinematography. I was surprised it is not more well known since it was so very well done. I am a female and had no trouble relating to any of the male roles in the film. Yes it had no female roles in it (save the Seal People girls that blush and giggle at Marcus Aquila) but I think it would have done damage to the story if there had been any strong female warrior roles. Everyone knows that the Roman Legions had no women fighting in them. Yes, the Celts may have had a few women that were fighters but that's all we need is a female warrior slave for Marcus to fall in love with *YAWN*. Boring and predictable.

Narfforc, now that you mention it, they really did butcher Eowyn's speech to the Witch-king. The best parts about her speech are about her love and loyalty to her king, which any man could have said just as well as any woman. The only things she says about not being a man is to say "No living man am I." which is essentially speaking the prophecy of his doom back to him.

[Lalwendë]

Tauriel - sounds like that stuff they put into cat food to help them see in the dark. Ick. I am not looking forwards to this. I'm already sick to the back teeth with the utter dross that is marketed at women - it's all Bridget Jones, Sex And The City, total drivel. I'm getting on my feminist high horse now but women do not need a marketing man's idea of something 'to identify with'. We aren't idiots, and are perfectly capable of enjoying and appreciating something that doesn't have women in it. Sure, there will be sneering critics who would pick up on a version of The Hobbit that was accurate and didn't have Mary Sue warriors in it, but they would sneer anyway.

There's more than enough SF out there which has women being all kinds of things including 'kick-***' and very little of it feels forced. Which is one of the reasons I've so taken to it as a genre. Nothing else quite matches up in what variety it offers to modern women as readers and watchers. SF fans are very good at picking up on daft characters which don't fit so they are going to have a huge job on their hands to make this work. The only people I can see it appealing to are fans of manga. It's a lot different to how Eowyn's words were altered, in essence her character and role stayed the same; this is like the Arwen at Helm's Deep idea x 100.

How many women actually read The Hobbit and enjoyed it without there being a Tauriel in there? The readership is at least half female so that should tell us something about whether women are turned off by the absence of a Tauriel!

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Knows how to wield any weapon, she does. Has purple eyes too, I bet.

You know it's going to happen!

[Morthoron]

Perhaps they should just give the protagonist breasts and call her Bilbette Baggins. Then she could accessorize once she gets the Ring.

[Galadriel]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by narfforc

I recently watched The Eagle, a film which had virtually no female roles in it whatsoever. This did not spoil the film for me at all, for there was no reason for any female lead role in it.

Agreed. I'd rather see a film with no female characters than with female characters that are cliched or unrealistic.

I do not think that beefing up a female serves any purpose, yes they can fight, there are many female boxers, martial artists and servicewomen who are tough, however they are not tougher than the men.

There's nothing wrong with a female fighter. Just because they are not as strong as men does not mean they are not strong period (in the same way that not having an IQ of 300 doesn't mean that you're stupid) – BUT I see something wrong with 'beefing up' a female character just to show that she can fight, and not because she's serving any purpose. Usually, when women in movies are fighters, they are the ONLY woman present, and actually just serve to be eye-candy for the men seated in the audience. In the end, they always need to be rescued. Bottom line? Either give me a female fighter with emotional flaws that doesn't need to be saved every two minutes, or don't give me a female fighter at all.

where things level out is in the grey matter

Men - physically superior due to strength
Women - biologically superior due to creation of life

Fact of nature. No point arguing.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Perhaps they should just give the protagonist breasts and call her Bilbette Baggins. Then she could accessorize once she gets the Ring.

I bet lots of Hobbits have moobs anyway

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Usually, when women in movies are fighters, they are the ONLY woman present, and actually just serve to be eye-candy for the men seated in the audience. In the end, they always need to be rescued. Bottom line? Either give me a female fighter with emotional flaws that doesn't need to be saved every two minutes, or don't give me a female fighter at all.

Plenty of examples of non- Mary Sue female characters who could beat the male characters from here to oblivion without needing to go "Oooooh, Help!" See: Kill Bill, Kick-***, Doctor Who, Buffy, Firefly, Alien etc for examples.

To be perfectly frank, I'm more convinced they are creating this fake fightin' female elf more to please the men watching than the women. Put it this way, the actress playing her isn't going to be caked in filth with sweaty hair and a funny shaped nose.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I bet lots of Hobbits have moobs anyway



Plenty of examples of non- Mary Sue female characters who could beat the male characters from here to oblivion without needing to go "Oooooh, Help!" See: Kill Bill, Kick-***, Doctor Who, Buffy, Firefly, Alien etc for examples.

To be perfectly frank, I'm more convinced they are creating this fake fightin' female elf more to please the men watching than the women. Put it this way, the actress playing her isn't going to be caked in filth with sweaty hair and a funny shaped nose.

Lol, I don't watch too much tv; I only talk for the stand alone movies

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Perhaps they should just give the protagonist breasts and call her Bilbette Baggins. Then she could accessorize once she gets the Ring.

No, no, no. She won't get the Ring, that's just vulgar. It'll be her engagement Ring from, um, well, that part's secret.

Originally Posted by Galadriel

There's nothing wrong with a female fighter. Just because they are not as strong as men does not mean they are not strong period (in the same way that not having an IQ of 300 doesn't mean that you're stupid) – BUT I see something wrong with 'beefing up' a female character just to show that she can fight, and not because she's serving any purpose. Usually, when women in movies are fighters, they are the ONLY woman present, and actually just serve to be eye-candy for the men seated in the audience. In the end, they always need to be rescued. Bottom line? Either give me a female fighter with emotional flaws that doesn't need to be saved every two minutes, or don't give me a female fighter at all.

This. You said it.

[narfforc]

[QUOTE=Galadriel;666996]

Usually, when women in movies are fighters, they are the ONLY woman present, and actually just serve to be eye-candy for the men seated in the audience.

I can see how nauseating this can be for women, but it can be for men also. Do the makers of these films think ALL men are unthinking brutes, who only survive on their base animal instincts. Don't get me wrong I have my moments, but never in a cinema . I find this type of exploitation work both ways, firstly the young good looking actress is enticed (with either money or furthering her career) by the director, to flash the flesh. Secondly this is used to enticed men to watch what is normally a crap film, and from that point of view these were the only bits they can remember, therefore taking their minds away from the fact they have just watched a rubbish film (this also happen with music/singers of crap songs). If a woman uses her body to gain something from a drooling man, that is exploitation, but only really stupid men cannot see that, and only the man driven by base animal instincts will fall under that spell.

If we are being forced to watch this film with Taurielektra in it, I hope that it is done with some decorum. I think this elven woman will be dressed very much like Arwen who stole Glorfindel's place, but it is not and never will be, the part of the film I am looking forward to. I suspect it will annoy more people than it will please. Given the fact that they are making two films out of this little book, surely this time they won't miss huge chunks out, and if the have space to introduce Miss Nobody of Nowhere and do miss out ANYTHING I will be very DISPLEASED.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by narfforc

If a woman uses her body to gain something from a drooling man, that is exploitation, but only really stupid men cannot see that, and only the man driven by base animal instincts will fall under that spell.

If we are being forced to watch this film with Taurielektra in it, I hope that it is done with some decorum. I think this elven woman will be dressed very much like Arwen who stole Glorfindel's place, but it is not and never will be, the part of the film I am looking forward to. I suspect it will annoy more people than it will please.

Ohh, maybe they'll make her a dominatrix, thereby attempting to appeal to third wave feminists.