/mtv/ Music, Television & Film Archived Board plus4chan home [baw] [co/cog/jam/mtv] [coc/draw/diy] [pco/coq/cod] [a/mspa/op/pkmn] [Burichan/Futaba/Greygren]
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 38481)
Password  (for post and file deletion)

Currently 0 unique user posts.

  • 08/21/12 - Poll ended; /cod/ split off as a new board from /pco/.

File 137624230777.jpg - (75.68KB , 750x500 , Tauriel_Legolas.jpg )
38481 No. 38481
> not been keeping up with any news concerning The Hobbit trilogy
> see this picture
> "uh, who's that?"
> character's name is Tauriel, apparently. Boy, this doesn't sound good.
> google up to see what's up

Okay, the character is... the leader of the Elven Guard of the Mirkwood forest. Best pals with Legolas since childhood. Main bodyguard of Thranduil, who has taken a liking to her and, ugh, senses something awesome about her. She is a deadly fighter, ruthless in battle. But she also has a softer side. Also, she is a non-conformist who rebels against the rigid social structure of Elven society. And she, uh, apparently will have a romance with Kili?

... what in the name of Crab Nicholson is this? Everything about the character sounds like the worst fanfiction cliches put together. Holy shit Im speechless, who the hell came up with this bullshit?
Expand all images
>> No. 38485
From what I hear, she seems to have been written in as a concession to modern audiences. But yes, as someone who's never touched Tolkien, that does sound bad.
>> No. 38492
>> No. 38493
Oh boy, I knew it looked bad but not THAT bad. There's still time for them to get rid of this, but... they won't, will they? :(

(And I'll say it again, the LotR movies had some serious fanfic-like moments.)
>> No. 38494
File 137627298496.gif - (65.95KB , 500x368 , katebeaton.gif )

Are you talking just the Frodo/Sam stuff or what?
>> No. 38498
I just want Peter Jackson to finish the damn Hobbit movies and get onto his real masterpiece...Tintin 2. Seriously, I'm 10x more interested in this shit than I am LoTR, and I really liked LoTR.

Also I've never heard a single feminist use the term "womyn", only bullshit "all cool characters need to be male and girls can't exist outside showing their tits" male chauvanists do that.

>> No. 38499
Mainly that. Some of the fanwank for Legolas looked like that, but they could just have thought it looked cool. Maybe some of the added scenes for Arwen and Aragorn, dunno.
>> No. 38503
I heard them use use it but the ones who do it are in reality female chauvinists.
>> No. 38509
I foresee, as sure as the sun rises and the Beorn shits in the woods, that after all is done and the three Hobbit movies are available on Blu-Ray, there will be 4-hour fan edit trimming all the fat and uniting all the good stuff into a single piece, one that will be hailed as the better version of the story.
>> No. 38511
>written in as a concession to modern audiences
because if there's something that modern audiences don't like, it's clearly Tolkein
>> No. 38514
Thought a lot about that. Making it just one big movie as it could have been, that would be cool.

Is there a fan edit of the first movie yet?
>> No. 38530
There still are, they're just not as common nowadays due to backlash by feminists who actually understand a lick of etymology. Used to be more frequent when LJ was still a thing.
>> No. 38534
Modern audiences like Peter Jackson. Not Tolkien. There's a reason only nerds get Tom Bombadil jokes or know who Morgoth is.
>> No. 38560
...Is all that accurate?
People couldn't make a female OC inserted into an old series anymore cliche if they were TRYING to do so.

Really there was no problem with Arwen getting a bit more screentime in LOTR movies, she was established / Aragaorn's love interest and it helped overall having her with a bit more facetime.
But the difference between that and this nonsense is like night and day.
>> No. 38562
File 137669844488.png - (9.67KB , 300x250 , FhsMZPFx5z-8.png )
Tom Bombadil is stupid and pointless.
>> No. 38563
Right, and that's something you only know because you actually read Tolkien. Most Lord of the Rings fans that became fans since the movies came out don't even know who the hell we're talking about.
>> No. 38566
> ...Is all that accurate?

All of that comes from official descriptions given to the character, except the bit about a romance with Kili which AFAIK is a rumor.
>> No. 38567
Even the name sounds like something out of a bad fanfiction. Is it even legit Elvish?
>> No. 38580

According to the internet...

>Tauriel means 'Woodland daughter' (S. taur [forest, great] + -iell [pat. fem. suffix; daughter]).
>> No. 39019
>> No. 39020
Looks... okay, I guess.

And Tauriel looks every bit as painful and forced as I fearead.
>> No. 39021
Kinda like it. Would be happier without all the... additions, too. If anything, should be fun at least.

Also expected a deeper voice on Smaug, but waiting to see.
>> No. 39022
Well, if it makes you feel any better, based on that trailer I'd say she has at least a 60% chance of dying before the end of There and Back Again.
>> No. 39148
Extended version is on iTunes. Among the additions is the Rivendell scene adding the Man in the Moon song from the Fellowship book as a dwarf drinking song and the full Goblin Town song.

The Hobbit- AUJ Extended (Bofur's Song)youtube thumb

The Hobbit- AUJ Extended (Goblin Town Song)youtube thumb
>> No. 39150
As long as it doesn't turn whoever is her BF into an angsty emo trainwreck the next movie, which would be even worse.
>> No. 39158
That's what I'm afraid of... if I recall it's supposed to be one of the "pretty boy" dwarves. Or maybe it's supposed to make Legolas some kind of tragic hero.

I gotta give that a check. Though a trimmed down version wouldn't be bad, too...
>> No. 39160
Gimli and Legloas becoming bros was special because it was the first time in the history of ever that a dwarf and an elf stopped giving shit about ages-old feuds.

But if we have an elf wench and a dwarf fella romantically involved just scant years earlier, it kinds shits on that. I hope that's just a rumor with no basis in reality.
>> No. 39161
I've also heard (unsubstantiated) rumors of her getting paired with Legolas.
>> No. 39163
Oh I can see that, haha... so the dwarf steals Legolas' girl (ooohhh neat, a love triangle, everything Tolkien movies still needed), she dies at some point, Legolas gets extra pissed at dwarves and the dwarf goes emo.

Let's just keep fingers crossed that I'm wrong.
>> No. 39164
So, Thranduil wants her, and Legolas wants her, and one of the Dwarves wants her.

Makes sense, considering the mary-sueness of the character.
>> No. 39169
>Makes sense, considering the mary-sueness we've talked ourselves into expecting of the character.
>> No. 39173
Read the description in the first post. Besides the romance bit, everthing else is stuff that has been said by various people related to the film, you can see the sourced quotes in the film's wikipedia entry.

Can you really say with a straight face, that it doesn't sound mary-sueish? Be honest.
>> No. 39174
I can honestly say that you appear to be making mountains out of mole hills because you want something to complain about before the thing you're complaining about has even happened.
>> No. 39175
It's telling that you did not answer my question directly
>> No. 39176
I can honestly say it doesn't sound any more mary sueish than any other named character in Middle Earth.
>> No. 39177
That's the thing, the "named" characters were named by the the guy who wrote the books. Tauriel is an OC written with the express intention of being the best shit ever bringing "female energy" to the story. One of the writers even refers to her as "our redhead"... wich is in itself a bit troubling, as IIRC redhead elves were incredibly rare and special and all related to friggin' Feanor.

Look, I am not saying it's impossible that she won't be a good character. I fucking HOPE she is, I want the movie to be great. But as it is, I am hoping for the best, but bracing for the worst.
>> No. 39181
Actress playing the new elf talking about the character and how she's prepared for the hate.
>> No. 39346
Yup, love triangle.
Yup, she kicks almost as much ass as Legolas.
...Which is something, because he obviously had to one-up the dwarves. I think he kills more orcs than all of them together in both movies. It was worth some laughs, actually.
Over half of the movie might have been just filler. Some cool Smaug scenes, but... yeah.
A lot of the part in Mirkwood from the book got cut.
>> No. 39347
What did they cut? I can't decide whether I want to wait until it comes out on disc or put up with the shitty theaters near here.
Also, why would they cut parts from the book while also padding it out to make three movies and introducing original character do not steal?
>> No. 39348
Bombur getting caught in an enchanted stream was one thing.
>> No. 39356
>What did they cut?
Been over 10 years since I read the book, so I don't remember much, but I was looking forward to Bilbo trolling the spiders hard, which got cut. I heard some part about the elves deceiving the dwarves in Mirkwood got cut, as well as some details about Beorn.

>Also, why would they cut parts from the book while also padding it out to make three movies and introducing original character do not steal?
Because stupid.

Lots of scenes they included felt like LotR, but the Hobbit book was its own thing with a more adventurous feel, less action. What's worse, some of the OCDNS crap they included felt just like the parts they included in the LotR trilogy that made the movies drag a bit.
>> No. 39357
Forgot one detail.

I didn't really like the bunch-of-frames new thing they hyped all over. It just felt like watching that Narnia direct-for-tv series and other shows from english tv. If that's what they were going for, I guess there were cheaper ways to do it?

(They only had 3D premieres, so I had no choice. Wonder if a 2D version runs more like the first one.)
>> No. 39358
I had some serious, probably CRIPPLING for some people, complaints.

But then Smaug spoke and instead of just being Cumberbatch doing a hissing thing like I thought (apparently he spoke in the newest trailer, which I'd not seen), he sounds kind of like a 100 foot high, reptilian Tim Curry.

And that really is just amazing.
>> No. 39359
The scene with Bilbo and Smaug were likewise, the major highlight of the movie for me. Like the scenes with Gollum were for the last one.

Besides that:
>Bard aka. a certain human archer
>Exposition on Lake-town

As somewhat disappointed that Mirkwood didn't get as much screentime as I had hoped. I was looking forward to glimpses of the elves' feast at least.

Also, I was cringing at the romantic sub-plot scenes, but then I knew they were coming.
>> No. 39360
Worst part of the movie was everything involved with the Sauron subplot, shit sucked and was poorly handled. That magic battle had such poor CGI, it makes me think that originally wasn't supposed to be there at all, but was tacked in (along poor, hastly done effects) to pad the film's running time.

Smaug was awesome, that I do agree.

I can't wait for all the Hobbit movies to be released, so some fans can work up an amazing 4+ hour edit that cuts all the bullshit and leaves the good parts.
>> No. 39367
>I can't wait for all the Hobbit movies to be released, so some fans can work up an amazing 4+ hour edit that cuts all the bullshit and leaves the good parts.
Wasn't sure if that was only me. Heck after watching the first one, I wanted to edit it myself. Cut out the extra fat with unnecessary Radagast scenes, Azog, Legolas, Sauron explicit references (Smaug going "MUAHAHA you don't know about my evil master!"? Really?), and DEFINITELY Miss OCDNS.

Also crappy CGI wargs. Better than the hyena ones, but I was sure they looked way better on the posters.
>> No. 39370
So apparently there is some sort of love triangle featuring Kili, new fanficcy elf chick and Legolas?

Wow... have to say I'm really glad I wasn't planning on buying the next two movies. I'll just stick with the first I purchased on a whim.
>> No. 39384
>Beorn having a less retarded haircut than in the previews
>Mirkwood hallucinations and spider fight
>the barrel scene
>fucking huge Erebor and that treasue
>Gandalf and Sauron confrontation

>Beorn's two minutes screen time and no conflict with drarves
>every fucking scene in Laketown
>Laketown itself looking too out of place and time for Middle Earth
>Thranduil's 3 minutes screen time
>not enough Bilbo/dwarves interactions and screen time
>those fucking short Erebor/Laketown cuts

What the fuck
>angel Tauriel
>dry humped Legolas
>the fucking credits song

I'm really torn. I absolutely loved some scenes but some things were absolutely retarded and borderline experimental.
>> No. 39386
Beorn was shown in the previews?
I thought his facial hair was too stylized. Expected some actual beard.

>Thranduil's 3 minutes screen time
...Did you want to see more of THAT?!

>the fucking credits song
I really looked forward to this, and mostly for the instrumental theme. Even after the movie was over, I was waiting to see what it would be like. The Song of the Misty Mountains tune has been on my head regularly since the first movie, and the ones from LotR are still among my favorites.
>> No. 39387
Beorn was shown with a ridiculous sanic haircut in some sneak peeks.
Also the whole Thranduil and his elves thing was pretty big in the book and was in trailer sand previews a lot.

I'm really mad they cut bits of Beorn, Mirkwood and the elves to put all the Tauriel/Legolas/Bard scenes.
>> No. 39390
I think Tauriel was a good addition. I'm glad they added her in. The missing scenes you guys are complaining about will probably be in the extended cut on DVD.

>Laketown itself looking too out of place and time for Middle Earth
The Lakewood part was the most boring part of the movie but lol the architecture really did not look any different from Bree, except that it was more crowded and on water.
>> No. 39391
Giving Bard more story significance is a GOOD change. And Legolas and Tauriel weren't really a problem. It allowed an excuse for a few of the dwarves to stay behind in Laketown, and that makes the threat to Laketown have more emotional torque.

The love triangle was unnecessary but also wasn't a big deal, other than giving Peter Jackson yet another excuse to make his movies longer than they need to be. But then again, if he didn't make his set pieces take too long that probably wouldn't even be an issue so whatever.

That time spent in the river fighting the Orcs gave me a few bad flashbacks to the "dinosaurs fall down for about an hour" scene in King Kong. It wasn't anywhere near as bad, and was actually pretty entertaining for most of it, but it still stood out as Peter Jackson basically masturbating over how proud he was of his set piece.
>> No. 39426
Man some people will work to justify anything and declare it "not a problem".
>> No. 39437
Incidentally some people will flip their shit over the tiniest thing, making it out to be the biggest problem ever.
>> No. 39438
You guys are not passive aggressive. Nope, not at all.
>> No. 39446
Plz stop yelling at me Stephen Fry
>> No. 39447
That isn't really a good excuse though. You shouldn't leave a movie going "hopefully they add things in the dvd to patch up the mistakes!"
>> No. 39448
I've heard that happening with the new X-men movie. I REALLY hope its not a incoming trend.
>> No. 39449
Whatever they can do to cut corners and bleed more money out of people
>> No. 39453
Saw the movie a second time, this time in IMAX 3D because the person I went with is a sound buff. Wow were they right, does it ever make a difference. I could feel the bass in my chest.

Overall I enjoyed the movie. The complaints about Tauriel are absurd, but I already kinda knew they would be given the type of people making said complaints, and how shrill they sounded. I am all for hot red-headed elf guard captain kicking ass with Legolas. Dat barrel-ride fight, yo. I also liked seeing Bolg and Azog getting some solid hits on our heroes, too.

The crown jewel of the movie is Smaug. Hot damn did they do a good job with that dragon. Definitely an improvement over cat-smaug in the animated movie. I enjoy that he got some more interaction with the dwarves rather than just having him fly off to lake town and get killed by some dude with an arrow.

Definitely looking forward to seeing Part Three.
>> No. 39454
> the type of people making said complaints

I hope you mean by that "Tolkien purists", and not something else that would cause a shitstorm.
>> No. 39457
File 138785381120.gif - (189.87KB , 560x840 , E6rklom.gif )

No, I totally mean that thing that would cause a shitstorm.
>> No. 39458
Right on. I'm with you on it.
>> No. 39459
So you actually mean to say that people who dislike the character, do it because she is a female, not because she is a major character that wasn't in the original? Is that right?
>> No. 39461
> You shouldn't leave a movie going "hopefully they add things in the dvd to patch up the mistakes!"

I didn't leave the theatre thinking that. None of the cuts were "mistakes." It didn't make anything more difficult to understand. It didn't make me feel like I was missing any information or that the movie was bad because Beorn didn't have enough screentime for me. It's all stuff I would have liked to see, I guess, but if I hadn't read the book, I probably would have just assumed they hadn't cut anything.

All you guys want is more scenes that you like but aren't very relevant to the plot. Demands like "not enough Bilbo/dwarves interactions" are ridiculous because it didn't even really happen in the book--some of the dwarves only have like ten lines or less in the entire thing from what I remember--so you're saying you want them to add scenes that weren't in the book and then you complain when they do add new stuff.

Granted in the Lord of the Rings trilogy there were some weird cuts for the theatrical release that made their way back into the extended edition. iirc Galadriel giving the Fellowship their gifts was cut so after they left Calas Galadhon they just magically had elven rope and shit with no explanation of how they got them. The song Eowyn sings at Theodred's funeral was fucking awesome but it got cut too, because it wasn't necessary for anything, it was just cool, so it was sacrificed. Those sorts of things in all previous movies got put back in the DVDs and I don't see why this one would be any different.
>> No. 39462
I heard it's less of a Hobbit Adaptation than the previous movie and more of a Lord of the Rings Prequel
Does that sound about right.
>> No. 39466
Or because she's pretty much a copy/paste of lots of other tacked in movie token female "main" characters.

>iirc Galadriel giving the Fellowship their gifts was cut
Yup, it was.

I'm not sure how important that was, but in The Two Towers, they left out a scene in the end, where the fleeing orcs from Helm's Deep were caught on the way out by the Huorns, some old, angry and bitter ents. That was a short scene that fit well with the story, wonder if it got cut just for pacing.
>> No. 39467
Sort of. The tone got pulled on the LotR direction, Sauron's influence was made WAY too obvious, in-your-face even, in a number of ways.
>> No. 39474
What's left for the third movie to tell in three hours? It's been a while since I read the book, but IIRC it's basically Bard going I STAB AT THEE, Smaug dies, everybody goes to Erebor to get get some bling, Thorin telling them to fuck off, and then the Battle of Five Armies ensues. Other than that, the only dangling plot threads are Gandalf escaping Dol Goldur, Legolas getting some revenge from Bolg for that bleeding nose, and the Tauriel x Kili thing getting resolved. And those last two most likely will be part of the whole Battle of Five Armies anyway.
>> No. 39475
Was there any mention of who originally kills Bolg? I think Thorin supposedly kills either him or Azog in the books?

I suppose they can just come up with more filler. Can't expect any better.
>> No. 39476
Maybe we'll get lucky and Peter Jackson will finally learn how to make a movie with a sane running time.
>> No. 39477
It was Beorn killed Bolg. Azog shouldn't even be there, in the book continuity he died over a century prior the events of The Hobbit.
>> No. 39478
Huh... yeah, I think I read something about that, not sure if Thorin's father or grandfather killed him or something. There's still the chance of Beorn killing him on the movie then I guess, but I'm not betting on it.

Also interesting, just realized orcs/goblins get to live past a century, in that case. Thought they had a short lifespan.
>> No. 39479
>There's still the chance of Beorn killing him on the movie then I guess
Uh killing Bolg, I meant.
>> No. 39480
The most accepted theory about the origin of the orcs, one that was brought forth by the Tolkien-man homself (though he didn't entirely like it) is that they are elves that were corrupted by Sauron's boss. Going by that, in theory an orc could live as much as an elf, but of course they have much lower life expectancy due being shitty cannon fodder used for Zerg rush tactics.
>> No. 39481
True, but Melkor didn't just corrupt them according to that theory. They were tortured pretty hard in the process, if I recall. I don't remember exactly, but I think there was a mention in the Tolkien Bestiary about it doing a number on their life expectancy.
>> No. 39493
Great movie in may ways.
Liked the book better.
>> No. 39508
i read the first graphic novel adapatation after an unexpected journey. i think if i hadn't i would have enjoyed this

but problems aside Tauriel is my elfu
>> No. 39514
How do they do with the really cliche Suish elements like the rare red hair, being unusually young and from the underclass, Legolas having a crush on her, and Go Get'em GRRRL vibes? Do they just kind of dismiss it off the bat or let it pile up as some sort of self-parodical humor then brush it off?
>> No. 39516
I think he meant adaptation of the book.
>> No. 39517
None of those issues NEED to be "dealt" with because they're all basically irrelevant. You're focusing on trivial but tangible details of a character like they're actual problems that need addressing, when it's more important to understand the real issues underneath those problems.

In Tauriel's case, the only real issue of substance is that she seems largely unnecessary to the story being told, and therefore pads out an already too long movie. She didn't take attention away from the more important characters, she didn't make anything too easy, and she didn't clash with the tone of the story being told.
>> No. 39519
...Considering the tone had already changed when they included Legolas so he could mow down orcs by the dozen.
>> No. 39522
Yes, exactly. Trying to make the issue be with one particular character is retarded because the Tauriel, and for that matter, Legolas, were not the problem--Peter Jackson's (or, quite likely, the producers') desire to turn the Hobbit into the Lord of the Rings was the biggest problem with the movie.

They were scared to make a small scale, personal story about a simple Hobbit learning he was more than he thought he was. They had to make it a Fantasy Epic That Explains The Things You Didn't Know About The Lord Of The Rings.

It's why I feel like we missed out on so much by Del Toro not taking over for the Hobbit flick. I think he could've done a smaller, more personal story a lot better than Jackson. Jackson is almost physically incapable of making a non-epic these days.
>> No. 39530
That doesn't excuse the character, though. A stand-in token copy-pasted idealistic character (female or whatever), with a shoehorned love triangle that slows the pacing of the movie? That's hard to ignore. She might indirectly become a reason why the elves will be involved at the Battle of Five Armies. Like someone said on /co/, a lot of stupid can be edited out, but all the involvement they gave her on the story makes even that difficult. What's worse, the made-up story about the made-up new or inserted characters (looking at Azog, Bolg, whatever on both movies so far, too) took the screen time of good scenes the fans had been wanting to see. Some Beorn scenes, Bilbo trolling the spiders and the like.

And then there's this extra detail: ever seen discussions on /co/ about how "relatable" kids in cartoons only piss off the kids who want to see their favorite characters? Isn't that the same as including a female character just because? I mean, even in the first Hobbit movie, women didn't seem to have a problem watching it without the new crap from this part.
>> No. 39531
Of course it doesn't excuse the character, because the character doesn't need excusing. She is a non-issue that nerds are turning into a major issue because of the Gender Politics fad going around the internet. You are focusing on things that don't matter at all because you get rewarded by 4chan for complaining about them.

A character being idealized is not a flaw in and of itself. A love interest being in a movie that didn't require a romance plot to tell its story is not a flaw in and of itself. A character existing because of some sort of politics is not a flaw in and of itself. Even "taking time away from (X) scene I wanted to see" is not a flaw in and of itself. You are expressing all of these things as though they were problems with the movie, which they weren't--they were just "Things that were different from the book," which has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the movie.

Talk to me about the problems that she introduced to the movie, not about how offended you are by the fact that things are different now, or "Grr, feminism, wah!" Talk to me about why she hurts the story being told, don't just fall back on "But, but, Mary Sue!" because that means nothing other than "I didn't like her."

...or, going the other way, just come out and say "I didn't like her." That's a perfectly valid thing to say--no one can tell you your REACTION was wrong. I will come right out and say that your interpretation about WHY you had that reaction is wrong, but neither I nor anyone else can say that you didn't have that reaction. But it is ridiculous the way the internet rewards uninformed whining about Tangible Details that anyone who's actually made more than a cursory study of film theory would recognize is completely missing the point, and I won't indulge you in it.

The reason those scenes you were missing weren't in the movie weren't "Because Tauriel was in it." The reason was that they were making a Lord of the Rings prequel instead of a Hobbit movie. A Lord of the Rings movie needs more elves in it so we know what Legolas was doing. A Lord of the Rings prequel needs the spiders to be epic and terrifying rather than being made chumps of by a hobbit. A Lord of the Rings prequel needs Smaug to be a huge badass who can see past the ring and isn't concerned about a simple Hobbit's trickery. A Lord of the Rings prequel needs orcs being bigger players, and Sauron getting a (partial) origin story, and Gandalf doing things behind the scenes that we actually get to see instead of just buggering off to give Bilbo a chance to shine.

And a Lord of the Rings prequel needs more "intrigue" in the form of inter-party conflict over things like dwarven-elven relations, without painting the elves as irredeemable bastards.

Every single problem with the movie arises from that one issue: that this movie was a dishonest attempt to cash in on the popularity of the Lord of the Rings instead of an honest effort to make a film adaptation of the Hobbit. Tauriel was a symptom, and "treating" the symptom without doing anything to treat the root cause accomplishes nothing and doesn't actually make the movie any better. It just throws a bone to the Gender Politics Police who hate the idea that they would add a female character to a movie that's supposed to be Boys Only.
>> No. 39532
As obnoxiously much of a Sue as Tauriel sounds I doubt she can have actually amounted to being more than a minor albeit glaring nuisance, and certainly not enough to be blamed for ruining the movie.
>> No. 39534
Yeah. it was just more filler in what felt like an ocean of filler




>> No. 39536
It was a futile attempt to drown him.
>> No. 39537

>“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.
>> No. 39538
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.
>> No. 39539
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.
>> No. 39541
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?
>> No. 39542
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.
>> No. 39544
>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.
>> No. 39545
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.
>> No. 39546
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).
>> No. 39547
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.
>> No. 39548
>Its like no one wants to be in them

>"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.’”
>> No. 39549
File 138928741527.gif - (2.44MB , 400x230 , 1389244877141.gif )
>> No. 39551
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.
37 posts omitted. First 100 shown. [Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]

Delete post []
Report post