/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.
>> No. 39554
Either Tauriel or Legolas will kill Smaug, I am calling it.
>> No. 39555
1. That would make Bard's entire character arc pointless.
2. No way a change that big from the book would ever fly.
>> No. 39556
Wait; two movies and the dragon still isn't dead?
>> No. 39557
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.
>> No. 39558
Please, they'll probably give Smaug at least 45 minutes before he dies.
>> No. 39568
But he was almost in Lake Town by the end of the movie
>> No. 39583
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.
>> No. 39584
> Tauriel giving him better black arrows made by elves

That would be almost as bad as Tauriel killing Smaug
>> No. 39585
File 138973754791.jpg - (165.31KB , 798x972 , Smaug_Boasts___The_Hobbit.jpg )
You know what I missed.
Smaug's bling armor.
It could still have the "plot hole" for Bard to shot.
Just looking shiny~
>> No. 39587
the connection between him and his horde, heck even FiM loves that shit.
>> No. 39605
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.
>> No. 39607
>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.
>> No. 39609

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.
>> No. 39610
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.
>> No. 39611
>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?
>> No. 39612
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.
>> No. 39613
>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.
>> No. 39615
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.
>> No. 39618
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).
>> No. 39619
Well, Galadriel escapes the "Mary Sue" accusations as well. It sticks much better when it's a fanfic character like Tauriel.
>> No. 39621
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.
>> No. 39622
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.
>> No. 39623
Which only further proves the point, really.
>> No. 39625
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.
>> No. 39626
> 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"
>> No. 39627
File 139026534895.gif - (1.87MB , 515x449 , 1379771907106.gif )
Rainbow Kid pls go, I know what you're trying to do here.
>> No. 39628
How can you even type that unironically.
>> No. 39630
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.
>> No. 39631
I like how Bombur got to do something other than be the resident fat guy of the group.
>> No. 39633
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.
>> No. 39634
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.
>> No. 39635
> 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?
>> No. 39636
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.
>> No. 39637
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?
>> No. 39641
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."
>> No. 39642
Gimli is pretty astonished by her too, though I wouldn't put that on the sexuality field.
>> No. 39689
File 139100380653.png - (136.05KB , 500x334 , tumblr_mzz3owAZSl1qe2obpo4_500.png )
>> No. 39697
Still hate the whole thing, but this looks too cute.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]

Delete post []
Report post