Itaril

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

...but that doesn't make wild speculation any more valid.

By saying this you are saying that we don't know what there will be and there's no point in provoking our strong antagonism to the movies further for no reason, which puts you in the optimist group.... Even if you don't have high hopes for the movie, it till makes you more optimistic than me (I place myself in the pessimists, with all the rants I've said about what will be in the movie)....

Let's put it this way (in yet another oversimplification): you are willing to let it rest for the time being, until we know for sure. I'm saying that we already know for sure, so there is no point in letting it rest.



I think my brain is calling for a dose of WW to get all this proving-the-point thing and the classifying-people thing out of me.

[Inziladun]

As one of the Constant Critics, I apologize if I've gone too far in anything I've said.

Frustrating as it is seeing PJ apparently monkeying around with another Tolkien book, it's no excuse for incivility or being crass.

[Elfchick7]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

As one of the Constant Critics, I apologize if I've gone too far in anything I've said.

Frustrating as it is seeing PJ apparently monkeying around with another Tolkien book, it's no excuse for incivility or being crass.

See, this is what I love about the Downs! People express their opinions and if someone feels that the tone is too acerbic, everyone is considerate of that and acts accordingly. I know that is really just a common courtesy, but it really isn't as common as it ought to be.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

It bears repeating -- at regular intervals -- that this thread began with a legitimate concern over the announced casting criteria for the character "Itaril' (which I will not repeat because my breakfast hasn't settled yet). Further consternation arose because of the publicity-driven antics of the actress Soirse Ronan and producers of The Hobbit over whether or not this young actress -- jail-bait, actually -- had, in fact, gotten the part of a butt-kicking elvish love interest. As it turned out, she hadn't. Again, the part sounded stupid, as well as irrelevant, and the attempt to gin up fan interest in this non-entity of a role failed miserably. So far, so good.

Never inclined to take a well-earned rebuke to heart and learn from it, however, the producers of The Hobbit saw fit to try again, this time through the time-dishonored resort to primitive word-magic -- i.e., they just invented another name, "Tauriel" for the same bad idea. Obviously, then, the producers of The Hobbit have decided on this sort of character and will have what they want, one way or another, trusting that the limited attention spans and meager historical memories of most movie-goers will allow them to pull off the Mary Sue mall-maiden popcorn gambit. Fine. They have a half-billion dollar budget and can waste it however they wish.

For my part, though, I have a memory and like to exercise it regularly. Therefore, I insist on speaking of "Itaril/Tauriel" so that we do not lose sight of what has happened to date, and why. Others, I see, have begun another thread dedicated to "helping" Peter Jackson design "Tauriel," when they really mean re-design, or re-brand, "Itaril," the actual project. I think I see the plan clearly enough. First, forget. Then, try to pawn-off the forgotten and rejected old as something "new." I would wish them good luck with that, except that I don't approve of voluntary amnesia or cheesy fan-fiction re-writing of literary classics.

As for the "standards" of this discussion forum, I can only say that Peter Jackson once made a film called "Bad Taste" -- and he can certainly make such a film again. Those of us who do not wish to see this happen with The Hobbit reserve the right to criticize studio demographic pandering in whatever way we see fit. Cheerleaders can do what they want, but cheer-leading constitutes no "standard for discussion," in my opinion. For myself, I have read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings more times than I can remember and I cannot recall any instance in which a character like Itaril/Tauriel either appeared or would have had any reason for cluttering up the dramatic narrative. Bottom line: the absence of this sort of character didn't hurt the stories, but the inclusion of such an unnecessary character certainly could tarnish the films made from them.

Or, to lower the standards of discussion further in verse:

We saw this tried before, and yet it failed
Once word of what the cheesy part entailed
Got out, whence critics rightfully assailed
A dumb idea. So, good sense prevailed
And plans for "Itaril" were soon curtailed.

But undismayed, investors fumed and railed
Until producers of The Hobbit quailed
And thus -- Voilà! -- a "brand new" scheme unveiled
Called "Tauriel" to sell what had been nailed
As not required to cure what hadn't ailed.

[Boromir88]

Who's doing the cheer leading? I thought Jackson was the king of exaggeration and then I read the first 4 pages of this thread

Tolkien's writing stands on it's own and nothing Jackson or anyone does can tarnish what the author achieved. What did Jackson not sign a movie poster for you? Because the amount of vitriol against him looks personal to you.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

Others, I see, have begun another thread dedicated to "helping" Peter Jackson design "Tauriel," when they really mean re-design, or re-brand, "Itaril," the actual project. I think I see the plan clearly enough. First, forget. Then, try to pawn-off the forgotten and rejected old as something "new." I would wish them good luck with that, except that I don't approve of voluntary amnesia or cheesy fan-fiction re-writing of literary classics.

I understand and share to some extent your scorn for this character and its repetitive failures. However, I think that those who started the thread you speak about don't deserve such a tone. If Itaril is a "must" in PJ's eyes under whatever name, so it be - but if she is there we would like to see her as... Well, better than a "butt-kicking elvish love interest". I mean, realistically, the director is likely to be sued by half the population for being sexist if he doesn't include women in his film. But he can vary how much the female roles affect the story, mood, etc.

I have been quite venomous earlier in this thread about the effects of this "strong female character Itaril/Tauriel" on TH, I admit. Looking back, I realise it was unnecessary, and I could have said the same thing with a calmer tone.

Originally Posted by TMT

Those of us who do not wish to see this happen with The Hobbit reserve the right to criticize studio demographic pandering in whatever way we see fit.

...As long as that doesn't cross the line of trolling. Something I will try to avoid on my part.

Originally Posted by TMT

Or, to lower the standards of discussion further in verse

Verse is always high standart, in my opinion.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I mean, realistically, the director is likely to be sued by half the population for being sexist if he doesn't include women in his film. But he can vary how much the female roles affect the story, mood, etc.)...

I haven't heard any uproar over David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia or Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan, neither of which had a central female figure. Besides, Galadriel will once again be trotted out for the White Council scenes.

I suppose I just can't see the vaguest reason for an Itaril/Tauriel character, other than chewing up minutes of the movie better served to tell the actual original plot. I think we can all agree that the further PJ deviated from the original storyline in LoTR, the weaker the sequences were. This inherent impulse for deviation seems more rooted in PJ's obsessive need to put his imprint on the story, rather than actually offering anything intriguing.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I suppose I just can't see the vaguest reason for an Itaril/Tauriel character, other than chewing up minutes of the movie better served to tell the actual original plot. I think we can all agree that the further PJ deviated from the original storyline in LoTR, the weaker the sequences were. This inherent impulse for deviation seems more rooted in PJ's obsessive need to put his imprint on the story, rather than actually offering anything intriguing.

Too true. And the worst thing is that in LOTR he took away original material in order to insert his ideas. I hope that there will be at least enough true Hobbit in the two-part (!) films.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I suppose I just can't see the vaguest reason for an Itaril/Tauriel character, other than chewing up minutes of the movie better served to tell the actual original plot. I think we can all agree that the further PJ deviated from the original storyline in LoTR, the weaker the sequences were. This inherent impulse for deviation seems more rooted in PJ's obsessive need to put his imprint on the story, rather than actually offering anything intriguing.

Yes, I'd agree the further away from the story Jackson got the worse the movie became. But, there's nothing wrong with a bit of ego, or an artist desiring to put their own imprint on a work. Jackson and his team often said they were trying to improve the story, which, in my opinion, there is nothing inherently evil in trying to improve something.

What those improvement were, and whether they were actually making improvements is another question. It's clear in some cases there was no evil deliberate manipulations, but rather he didn't understand the story (which is worse? I don't know ). Like, he seriously believed Sauron was a giant floating eyeball. Others like cutting down all the aspects that make Faramir noble, or reducing Gimli to a running gag of jokes were deliberate attempts to improve. What I'm trying to argue though is, Jackson's a film director and the drive to improve doesn't make him TEH BIGBAD evil destroyer of Tolkien's legacy. Tolkien's legacy was there before Jackson ever conceived of making films and can't be taken away.

Like I said before, I couldn't care less what someone thinks of the movies or Jackson. He's a big boy who has lots of money now. Good for him. I'll be more clear about it now. In order to have any good discussion there has to be disagreement. I can secretly laugh at the beautiful sarcasm through yours, Inzil's, and several others' posts and still be perfectly content arguing. But, in my opinion, TMT went beyond good natured, insightful disagreement and personally, I thought it appallingly distasteful.

As creative and clever as the words were, there's no need to be crude or vicious in your language. Like it or not, I do believe the movies will be a first introduction to the story for a new group of people, either who were too young or weren't born when LOTR movies came out. That means, I also believe the 'Downs will get a boost (perhaps only temporarily) in new members. If mean-spiritted and crude posts is what the members want to sit back and yuck up over, I don't want any part of it. But no worries about that, I can stay out of the Movie forum easily enough.