The Hobbit Movie Trailer!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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

That has already been planned. In the second movie, Bilbo gets a dominatrix love-interest, a buxom Stoorish beauty named Labia Spankbottom.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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

A third wave feminist would surely be more likely to reject the whole thing as commercial nonsense and not indie enough?

I've got no particular ideology to make me think this way, but my primary concern is it's all too predictable and cheesy to throw in a constructed female character because they think women will be turned off by the film without this. A bit like how toy shops insist on making everything for girls in vile pink. It's patronising.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

A third wave feminist would surely be more likely to reject the whole thing as commercial nonsense and not indie enough?

I've got no particular ideology to make me think this way, but my primary concern is it's all too predictable and cheesy to throw in a constructed female character because they think women will be turned off by the film without this. A bit like how toy shops insist on making everything for girls in vile pink. It's patronising.

It is patronizing, which is why I can't take Jackson's films seriously. The very idea that he considered throwing in Xenarwen at Helm's Deep is laughable. And even what was kept in the LotR films shows his knack for novelty and not serious filmmaking; for instance, we have bold Arwen defying the Nazgul at the Fords of Bruinen, only to watch her character becoming more and more squishy as the films progressed. It's almost as if she had an evil twin who only made an appearance in FotR, and then Elrond made her to go her room. Bad Xenarwen! No supper for you!

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Bad Xenarwen! No supper for you!

And no "Sweet 1600" party if you don't forget about that Aragorn boy!

My basic problem with such changes from book to movie remains: if you have to alter a book substantially to make it work in a different format, maybe you should just write your own story and screenplay and do with it what you like. Oh, right, No one would likely be that interested unless you can attach the name of a well-known book to it.

[Dilettante]

Originally Posted by narfforc

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.

If they put her in a leather bikini like Guinevere in King Arthur, I am going to scream.

[Mithalwen]

I haven 't seen any casting for Galion so I am afraid it will be hobbit needs to be saved by Elf-warriorette again. Billy Connolly is playing Dain. Wonder how many more unlikely cameos can be shoehorned in?

[narfforc]

Billy Connolly as King Dain Ironfoot.................I think this will work. No doubt we will see The Iron Hills and the dwarves getting ready/marching to war when they get the message...

[Mithalwen]

On his current form the dwarves would heckle him and he would stomp off half way through...

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by narfforc

Billy Connolly as King Dain Ironfoot.................I think this will work. No doubt we will see The Iron Hills and the dwarves getting ready/marching to war when they get the message...

Well, it seems a logical choice, as Billy has had previous experience with dwarves (warning: profanity and politically incorrect terminology):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tbsNUvQQmI