http://www.accesshollywood.com/evangeline-lilly-on-what-her-the-hobbit-and-lost-characters-have-in-common_article_87685

>“For the record, when I took this job, in 2011, I made one stipulation. That’s it. I just said… I swear to God, I said, ‘I will not do this film if you will not guarantee me one thing. You have to guarantee me there will be no love triangle.’ And there wasn’t. For the whole time I shot. For a year of shooting there was no love triangle,”

>“And then, I came back for reshoots in 2012 and they were like, ‘Well, we made a couple of alterations to some scenes and we added a couple more scenes,’” the actress continued. “And all of a sudden manifested a love triangle before my very eyes and the film was shot and I’m in and there’s no getting out and there was no escaping it.”

Thanks a lot, Hollywood.

>>39537
Wow. If it's stipulated in her contract can't she sue? She probably won't because it's too late but dang, that seems ridiculously underhanded.

>>39537
That was a pretty low move from them.

I guessed she had no fault on the whole character thing, but she gets some extra respect there. And jackson loses even more.

Reading the last few posts, I am at loss at why disliking Tauriel is apparently a dumb thing and you are a mysoginistic 4chan troll if you do. I mean, she has been identified as being part of the problem (the filler to make the story more "epic" and LotR-like), and a very obvious part at it, since she is a major addition, a character that did not exist in any way or form.

Much like the scooby-doo chase and the dumb golden statue trap, she reeks of somebody thinking "I can make this story better!", but somehow the character is protected from being disliked because... uh?

>>39541
By the way, while I do dislike Tauriel quite a lot (along with all the unnecessary filler), my biggest objection with the movie is how awful the whole "Gandalf Vs Sauron" subplot was handled. The magic battle in the birdge HAS to be a late addition because come one, those special effects sucked. Plus, what the hell was the point of that reveal of Sauron being the "iris" of the Great Eye? It's going to be hilarious to rewatch RotK, and see the eye moving like crazy towards the end of the movie knowing a physical (or semi-physical at least) Sauron is right there in the middle of it.

>>39542
>Plus, what the hell was the point of that reveal of Sauron being the "iris" of the Great Eye? It's going to be hilarious to rewatch RotK, and see the eye moving like crazy towards the end of the movie knowing a physical (or semi-physical at least) Sauron is right there in the middle of it.

You're taking the imagery of that scene way too fucking literally. I would have thought the zooming through multiple Saurons within Saurons would have tipped you off.

>>39541
Because no one's making the same complaints about Bard. Yes, Bard was in the original book, but he had pretty much no characterization, not much backstory, and certainly no character arc. His part in this movie was just as shoehorned in as Tauriel's, took even more time away from the other scenes than hers, could have Mary Sue arguments targeted at him (clever, wields a magic weapon, descendant of hero, fighting back against a corrupt government, targeted for special hate by said government just because he does The Right Thing, hero of the working man, deals fairly with everyone, and no "flaws" to speak of), and could even be argued to be ACTUALLY taking the limelight away from the book's more major characters.

Now personally, I feel Bard's expanded role was beneficial, because it makes his involvement in the downfall of Smaug come off as less of a Deus Ex Machina (though since Smaug wasn't the REAL point of the original book, the DEM element of his defeat wasn't that big a deal there), and I disagree with the Mary Sue criticism in general, much less in this specific case--I only bring it up to point out that people who make the argument against Tauriel could just as easily apply it to him. But the point remains--he's essentially an Original Character wearing the name of a canon character, and one who is all around more competent and admirable than most of the canon characters. And yet, Tauriel is the one that gets all the hate, and she was less of a change to the story than Bard was.

Between all that and the fact that nerd culture has begun enabling and even celebrating its misogynists in recent years, of course you're going to get accusations of misogyny from time to time.

>>39545
Not the same one you just answered to, but
>Bard was in the original book
>because it makes his involvement in the downfall of Smaug come off as less of a Deus Ex Machina
You just pointed out two good reasons for not getting the same hate. Not that the whole made up thing about him doesn't suck, personally I could go without, but he has always been important to the story in a way. At least it doesn't feel like a token character so much, made up for romance purposes. He's supposed to rule the city later, so it makes sense to show SOME reason why he'd be a better ruler than the current one.

(Honestly, if they wanted to show him as that much of a badass, they should have also left in the fact he kills Smaug with the Black Arrow from a motherfucking regular bow. Guess they thought that wouldn't be too impressive anyway with fucking Legolas surfing around firing heat-targeting arrows or whatever the fuck he does that kill Olyphants).

My main gripe with Tauriel is that the "romance" scenes are just fucking painful to watch. Its like no one wants to be in them and the fact that she's in all of them make me have just a little more dislike of her.

Also>>39546 's arguments.

>>39547
>Its like no one wants to be in them

Well...
http://www.hypable.com/2013/12/09/hobbit-evangeline-lilly-tauriel-hero-new-character/
>"The condition was: I will not be involved in a love triangle."
>“And sure enough, I come back for reshoots in 2012 and they go, ‘We’ve made a few adjustments to the love story.’”

>>39546
No, I provided one good reason--the set up for Smaug's death later. Whether or not a character was in the source material is irrelevant to how good a decision including the character was to the movie. c.f. Jiminy Cricket in Pinocchio.

Either Tauriel or Legolas will kill Smaug, I am calling it.

>>39554
1. That would make Bard's entire character arc pointless.
2. No way a change that big from the book would ever fly.

Wait; two movies and the dragon still isn't dead?

>>39556
They wanted to leave it as a cliffhanger. Which is kind of silly given that they're probably going to end up killing him in the first ten to twenty minutes of the next movie.

>>39557
Please, they'll probably give Smaug at least 45 minutes before he dies.

>>39558
But he was almost in Lake Town by the end of the movie

>>39568
Yes and they'll make a massive action sequence out of Smaug burning Laketown, Bard escaping from prison, Tauriel giving him better black arrows made by elves and climbing up to the giant crossbow to try and get a shot in.

>>39583
> Tauriel giving him better black arrows made by elves

That would be almost as bad as Tauriel killing Smaug

You know what I missed.
Smaug's bling armor.
It could still have the "plot hole" for Bard to shot.
Just looking shiny~

>>39585
the connection between him and his horde, heck even FiM loves that shit.

The term Mary Sue has no fucking meaning anymore. People just use it to justify their nerd rage about female characters not being simpering and incompetent. For the record, I HATE what they did with Tauriel. Peter Jackson is a fucking moron if he couldn't conceive of adding a female character without making her a love interest. She could have just been a cool elf who decided to help them in their quest, because fuck dragons, amirite, but NOOOOOOOOOOOO. I just wanted to watch her do backflips and stab the shit out of orcs, but NOOOOOOOOOOO. The whole time she and Kili were talking in the prison I kept thinking of the "I hate sand" bullshit from the Star Wars prequels.

Also, all the Laketown stuff was dumb. I didn't give a hot gay fuck about Bard or his family or his angst, and Stephen Fry looked like he'd run blindfolded through a Monty Python episode.

>>39605
>People just use it to justify their nerd rage about female characters not being simpering and incompetent.
Uh, no? A good number of people in this thread have pointed out why the term applies to her in particular, because she sets off a lot of familiar alarms regarding such characters in LotR fanfic. I'm female and into strong female characters and I could feel the Sue stereotypes smacking me in the face. And the use of the term here is not about whether she's competent or not, or about her stealing the plot in the movies, because even if she's a badass she's not enough of a major character to qualify as a true-blue Sue. It's more that she exhibits so many of the cliches seen in characters who are clear-cut Sues, as if the writers did a FFN binge and thought all these terribly written characters made for a good template to build their own off of.

>>39607
This.

IMO, Tauriel could easily be workable into a good character that doesn't clash as much with the setting.

* Drop the loves story angle. Shit was terrible and did not make any sense. Including the Legolas part, for god's sake people can be friends without romantic interest. One of the things I loved about Avengers, was that Hawkeye and the Widow were total bros and yet there was no romantic or sexual tension between them.

* If there HAS to be a a love angle, at least put some effort into it, give Tauriel SOME reason why she would think this Dwarf is the bees-knees. How? I don't know, I am not a writer. Perhaps introduce her in the first movie somehow and make her interact with Kili (and the rest of the Dwarves too, prefferably) a bit more, it was cringe-worthy how the characters are all SING ME THE SONG OF YOUR PEOPLE just moments after they met in such hostile circumstances.

* Don't make her commander supreme of the elven guard and royal bodyguard and all that nonsense. If she was a plain soldier (a very capable one), nothing in the plot would change and yet she'd be a bit more believable, especially since they pushed the whole "she is a lowly class elf" on her. Speaking of which...

* Stick with her being a childhood friend with Legolas, bit don't make Thranduil knew her beforehand. That scene where they speak about Legolass having feelings for her? Should have been the first time she ever met her king in person. That way the conversation would have made more sense, and Tauriel would have an even deeper reason to resent how strict the elven society was in their customs.

* Personally, I would have given her another set of weapons, having another Elf armed with daggers and bow makes her redundant. Perhaps have Kili give her an Dawven axe or mace, which she would find really cool, I don't know. Making her an equal to Legolas doesn't have to mean she is a carbon copy

* Make her a blonde, or better, dark haired. Redhead elves are incredibly rare and all related to Feanor.

>>39607
You're missing his point. He's not arguing in favor of Tauriel or saying "The label is unfair for her," he's saying that the term Mary Sue is absolutely worthless as a term for criticism because it literally has no consistent meaning.

And yes, I'm sure you're about to give me YOUR definition of a Mary Sue, but I don't give a fuck what your definition is because if you ask four people what the definition of Mary Sue is you're going to get five different definitions. It is absolutely valueless as a criticism.

>>39609
>If she was a plain soldier (a very capable one), nothing in the plot would change and yet she'd be a bit more believable
How is that more believable exactly?

>>39605
Most of the people crying Mary Sue regarding Tauriel aren't doing it because they're evil fedora-wearing misogynists. It's because she literally does adhere very closely to the archetypical Mary Sue character that has become infamous on the internet, at least on a superficial level. You could argue whether she truly is a Mary Sue or not, or whether the term has any meaning in this case, but stop trying to turn it into a matter of social justice when it really isn't.

>>39609
>Stick with her being a childhood friend with Legolas, bit don't make Thranduil knew her beforehand. That scene where they speak about Legolass having feelings for her? Should have been the first time she ever met her king in person. That way the conversation would have made more sense, and Tauriel would have an even deeper reason to resent how strict the elven society was in their customs.
I'm not sure that's how elven society is supposed to work. I think I recall them having some merry feast in the book with the king present, and that kingdom has been there for hundreds of years. I'd be surprised if there were elves there who he hadn't met in person.

I'm gonna confess I had to check the wiki recently, and... wow. They just shat so much on Thranduil. Dude's apparently like, 3000 years old, real badass and a decent elf person and king, but they pushed him hard as some greedy, pedantic, two-faced affected fairy. They pretty much wanted viewers to enjoy seeing the dwarves telling him to get fucked.

>>39611
My guess is that since she is pretty high in the Elven Guard of Mirkwood *and* Thranduil's bodyguard, she'd be a pretty important person regardless of her origin. Plus they made it clear that Thranduil knew her from way back, so like the other anon said, it shits pretty bad on the King's character that he would call her to basically say "you are a shitty lowly pleb, leave my son alone". If she were a commnon soldier, that whole plot point would make more sense.

>>39612
nobody who takes the term "mary-sue" seriously is a person worth listening to

for the record though many of the characters in lord of the rings fit the mary-sue archetype but they don't get shat on a lot for it because they are male and therefore it doesn't raise flags. they are still good characters when they are male so that means it totally IS a gender thing and also that this constellation of traits is not inherently bad. it's only bad... when it's a girl.

most characters in middle earth are exceptional in some way (except when the point is that they aren't, like with the hobbits).

>>39618
Well, Galadriel escapes the "Mary Sue" accusations as well. It sticks much better when it's a fanfic character like Tauriel.

>>39618
Holy shit, you are actually serious about this. You are not being ironic, or trolling, you actually DO believe that everybody in this thread who disliked the character, does it solely because she is a female. Somehow, that's actually worse.

You know who are the two biggest Mary-Sueish characters in Tolkien's fiction? That would be Tom (who pretty much IS a self-insert) and Galadriel (a girl! who was BEST ELF EVAR by the Tolkien's own words! And yet she wasn't a fiery redhead!). Nobody minds them, not only because they WERE written by Tolkien himself, but because while extraodinary beings they have a very specific purpose and enter the plot as quickly as they got into it.

Shit, plot-wise Tauriel's entire character so far is defined by being the romantic interest for both Kili and Legolas, her worth in the story lies in being the prize for two characters instead of her own skills. If I were you, I'd be pissed about that.

>>39621
Actually Tom Bombadil is quite massively hated, it just doesn't crop up a lot here because he's not in the movie (that I know of). Most of his defenders are hardcore Tolkienfags or ancient literature buffs who like the meta of him, but pretty much everyone else reviles him for sticking out like a sore thumb and being a general waste of space. Galadriel (a woman!) escapes largely unscathed because her ridiculous OP-ness is most kept back to the lore while her role in the plot is to push it forward in a way that makes sense. She doesn't steal time for annoying stuff nobody wants to see like Tauriel and Tom do.

>>39622
Which only further proves the point, really.

>>39621
Chill, bitch. You're overstating the point that's being made so you can react in faux outrage to get patted on the back for your passion, and it's ugly.

>>39625
> overstating the point
> what I said is exactly what that poster said, that the character is disliked because she is a female
> he/she even outright says "it's a gender thing"

>>39625
Rainbow Kid pls go, I know what you're trying to do here.

>>39625
How can you even type that unironically.

>>39621
it is a gender thing. there are literally people who fight about whether it is *possible* for there to be a true male mary-sue. there is a masculine version (gary-stu) which is never used, because people don't use the same harsh criteria on male characters. they have to be exceptionally annoying and out of place for people to start shitting themselves over a "mary-sueish" male character. it's not that people sit there and think to themselves, "god, i hate women. i hate women who do things. this character is doing cool things, but she's a woman, so i hate her." it's not like that. it's about having abnormally low tolerance for a set of character traits when they are on one gender as opposed to another. you evaluate characters differently based on their gender. you guys get so bent out of shape when you think you're being accused of "hating women"! it's amazing!

you are fucking stupid if you are using galadriel as a counter-example. she doesn't receive hate because she is a minor character who is clearly ancient and is more of a crone archetype than anything else. she is arwen's grandmother. in LOTR, she is there to dispense some stuff to the fellowship and does little else, regardless of her history. to people watching the movies or people who have only read LOTR (the bulk of fans) she would not hit any triggers, but if she played a bigger role and she was actually young with some emphasis given to cool stuff she does, you could be damn sure she would be hated. similarly, if gandalf had been female, she would have also escaped damnation as a mary-sue because she would be a crone too.

I like how Bombur got to do something other than be the resident fat guy of the group.

>>39630
You're still missing the point, or are just a stubborn troll/know-nothing.

Regarding >there is a masculine version (gary-stu) which is never used
The only reason it's not being used here is because those types of fanfic-Sues people are referring to in their criticisms of Tauriel, which do follow a well-defined set of traits (enough so that Common Mary Sue Trait checklists and litmus tests have arisen as a resource in response), almost never feature male characters in that position.

If the writers added an original male character like Duke Nukem, Ichigo, or Kratos from GoW (who do receive a lot of hate for being classical Stus, or are a parody of them, don't give me any of that BS) people would still call for his blood on the basis of him not fitting in with the canon and for stealing opportunities for badassery/development from more book-relevant characters. Or for having all the female characters want to sleep with him for no real reason, were this a different series. And guess what, they didn't. Sure what they did with guys like Bard is annoying and pushes the boundary of the modern, more nebulous concept of a Sue/Stu (which isn't even the one most of us are using, but which you keep pushing upon us), but as people have mentioned already, he gets the benefit of being an already-canon character similarly to Arwen, while Tauriel doesn't.

So yes gender does matter, but only so much as the fact that fanfic writers using this particular cliche of the Mary Sue of old 90's/00's fanfiction (the specific context I and most other people in this thread are using the term in) usually applied this role to females, while the males were off being written as their particular Gary Stu equivalent, which at this point in time featured a very different though no less annoying set of cliche traits anyway.

So go blame the shitty fanfic writers of old for writing females this way in the first place instead of crying wolf about 4Chan nerds and misogyny. Or don't, because if anybody is twisting the definition of Mary Sue to suit their argument it's you.

>>39633
I think their problem might be that they're referring to general internet, bottom of the barrel comments rather than what's actually in this this thread. Sure maybe there's blatantly sexist things being said on some subreddit but here? It's a few comments about the weird resemblance to the elf girl characters a lot of women can remember writing in their middle-school notebooks (funny but self-admittedly shallow), or part of larger criticism like the "filler in a sea of filler" comment earlier.

>>39630
> there are literally people who fight about whether it is *possible* for there to be a true male mary-sue

There has been already an example mentioned earlier, Tom friggin' Bombadil who for all intents and purposes is a self-insert of Tolkien. And people do dislike the little fella.

Also, Galadriel is a "crone" archetype? What?

>>39634
It's still silly of them to try to dismiss the idea that she resembles stereotypical Sues altogether on the basis of extreme dudebro comments, considering I've seen a decent number of people who are most likely not misogynists saying the same things elsewhere.

And I've seen too many people on Tumblr or otherwise try to flip the idea on its head and argue that because of the double standards for female or male characters, that you can NEVER dislike a character you perceive as being a Mary Sue without your reasons for it being rooted in misogyny, internalized or otherwise. That may have been true back in the day like 10 years ago, but today? I see plenty of male characters being criticized by other males for being bland and overpowered wish fulfillment fantasies. The standards gap today is smaller than a lot of Sue apologists are willing to admit, and while it's true there's a lack of "empowered" female characters in common media, that doesn't mean we should be forced to tolerate crap like the Black Jewels Trilogy, Anita Blake, and Tamora Pierce's books.

>>39630
Dude/Dudette, please answer me this, and be honest:

Do you think that Tauriel, as she was developed in the movie, is a solid, well written character and a worthwhile addtion that improves Tolkien's story?

>>39635
I'm not interested in contributing any further to this Tauriel argument, but
>Also, Galadriel is a "crone" archetype? What?
Yeah, definitely. She is a woman of mysterious and arcane power and subtle influence whose sexuality is downplayed--and would be completely absent if not for Sam thinking she was pretty. This is absolutely more "Crone" than "Maiden" or "Mother."

>>39641
Gimli is pretty astonished by her too, though I wouldn't put that on the sexuality field.

>>39689
Still hate the whole thing, but this looks too cute.