Let's talk about Tauriel, shall we?

Subject: Let's talk about Tauriel, shall we?
Author: Lily Winterwood
Posted on: 2012-09-19 03:50:00 UTC

I don't know whether this topic's been brought up on this Board at all, and pardon me if it has, but I just wanted to know what the Tolkien fans on this Board think about PJ's inclusion of his very own OC elleth warrior in the Hobbit movie.

Tauriel, to me, represents the evolution of the way people perceive Tolkien's stories. LotR was written around World War Two all the way into the 50s; the Hobbit earlier than that. Historically, women fell into more traditional roles around then and so it was natural for the Hobbit to be just one big sausagefest (I recently reread the book and I don't ever remember seeing a single line by a female character in that book). Even Eowyn eventually rejects a role of a warrior for the relatively more feminine role of a healer, although she admittedly has good reasons to (-coughBlackBreathcough-). I think Tolkien's strongest female-character-in-a-male-role would be Haleth from the Silmarillion, and even she was a very minor character especially compared to Luthien (who was the wife-insert love interest of Tolkien's self-insert anyway).

So now in the 21st century, beginning with Arwen riding to Frodo's rescue and continuing here with Tauriel (played by the absolutely gorgeous Evangeline Lilly, btw), we have the films attempting to include more strong female roles in the storyline. I remember, in my earlier days in the LotR fandom, all the wank arising from "ARWEN OMG, YOU SCENE STEALER, IT'S BLOODY /GLORFINDEL/" and other similar sentiments, and now it seems the fandom is on the wankmobile again with "TAURIEL YOU MARY SUE GTFO". Is it because of our infamous Mary Sue legacy? Perhaps. But I feel like Tauriel is being unfairly judged, especially considering most LotR Sues at least have a story to justify charges; all Tauriel ever did was show up packaged as an action figure with Legolas, and be at the centre of some rumours regarding her and Kili's relationship in the films.

What are your thoughts, then, on Tauriel? Does she represent the continuing evolution of Tolkien's legendarium, towards a more female-inclusive outlook? Or is she bad news and inadvertent encouragement for Suethors?

Reply Return to messages

Let's talk about Tauriel, shall we? by Lily Winterwood on 2012-09-19 03:50:00 UTC

I have been avoiding discussion of the Hobbit by Sevenswans on 2012-09-19 23:17:00 UTC Reply

With extreme prejudice so far. I did like the LOTR movies (though, how you get a trilogy out of The Hobbit other than by showing all of the walking or going into random flashbacks from the first war or the Silmarillarion is beyond me,) and sort of understand some of the casting decisions, just based on the marketing and not wanting more minor characters running around than there strictly needed to be. I actually thought it was kind of interesting that they actually tried to show Arwen when they were in Rivendell, but that quickly became an extraneous romance shoehorned into the movie with a cattle prod. Can't Arwen and Aragorn be secure enough in their relationship and their knowledge of that what needs to be done in Middle Earth will occasionally separate them for a while? It's not like they were attached at the hip while Aragorn was walking about in the north.

All I can think about the new character Tauriel is that hey, you want to cast some women as archers in Mirkwood? Be my guest. A bow makes a lot of sense for a female warrior: for one, a short bow is not made for a large physique. The fact that she's packaged with Legolas probably says more about the actress who plays her having eye-candy status than about her actual role in the movie. I just can't think of anything - other than a throwaway line or being one of many warriors to round up the dwarves - for her to do in the movie. Whatever she does won't pertain to Bilbo, or to the Ring at all. And while I can accept that PJ really wants to stage Gandalf throwing down the Necromancer in order to tie this all in to LOTR on a more visible level for the audience, and elaborate more on the information that Gandalf gathered before the Ring was passed to Frodo, I just don't know what purpose this new role serves yet.

Also, can we, pretty please, have a movie that doesn't have a romantic subplot squeezed into it where it doesn't fit? I thought that there was certainly nothing they could do to The Hobbit in that regard, but reading the other comments, I'm getting a bit worried. I'm not against romantic subplots, but I wish they weren't practically required for multi-demographic appeal.

[Snorts] by Huinesoron on 2012-09-22 08:19:00 UTC Reply

how you get a trilogy out of The Hobbit other than by showing all of the walking

"Coming Winter 2013... from the team that brought you The Lord of the Rings... The Hobbit II: On A Path In Mirkwood!

"There is walking!

"There is moaning!

"There is the climbing of a tree!

"See the climactic crossing of the river! Gasp as Bombur falls in! Gaze in awe as he rambles about food for the final half hour! Witness the inability of Bilbo to make anything better! THE HOBBIT: OAPIM, coming soon to a cinema near you!"

hS

{X D Someone should make this trailer right now. (nm) by Neshomeh on 2012-09-22 16:10:00 UTC Reply

Pardon my saying so... by KittyNoodles on 2012-09-19 22:36:00 UTC Reply

But I don't see any problem with adding a few OCs to flesh out the story and give the gals of LotR some more roles - even if they aren't canonical gals. I'm not saying I have a problem with anything in the books - because, honestly, even if I did disagree with the canon in any way, Tolkien was the author/creator and I don't feel I have any right to say 'NO HE DID [insert whatever] WRONG!' - but it's kind of nice to see an extra girl added to the story here and there, and I think people should wait to get a more complete picture of Tauriel's character and involvement before they go off damning her or PJ to every hell that comes to mind.

(On the topic of Arwen replacing Glorfindel in the LotR movies, 1) Legolas did the same thing in the horrendous animated version, so I'm really not sure why Arwen gets so much bull-poo over it and Legolas gets ignored. 2) Yes, that was annoying, but only because Glorfindel seriously needs some movie love. And an actor who doesn't look like George from BBC's Being Human.

Maybe Glorfindel will show up in the Hobbit trilogy? Since it's three movies of one book...)

TLDR Version: As long as she doesn't turn out to be a ginormous Mary-Sue who steals lines from Thranduil, I don't really have any problem with Tauriel showing up in any of the films.

And Legolas is a scene-stealer just as much as Arwen is, just not in the live-action movies. :D
My thoughts. by Neshomeh on 2012-09-19 06:11:00 UTC Reply

They can be pretty much summed up like this:

1. Who the heck is Tauriel?

2. Why is an elf warrior being made a big deal of in The Hobbit at all, regardless of sex? No warriors have names or speaking parts in the book that I recall, unless you count Thranduil, and he wasn't even named at the time.

3. What does Peter Jackson have against leaving well enough alone? Can't he make a pie without feeling the need to stick his fingers in it and smear it all over?

I'm not offended by the idea of female characters doing more stuff in Middle-earth, for the record. I got over being thrown for a loop when Arwen turned up in Glorfindel's part. I get not wanting to introduce an extra role for that one thing, that's fine. (Her later appearances were mostly pointless and irritating, however.) We could've had more of Eowyn, that would've been awesome. No—I'm offended by the idea of inserting entirely non-existent characters and/or plot points where they don't belong, to the point where the story's been stretched out to three films with uncanon nonsense—because look, really, even with the elaboration upon Gandalf's doings, it should not take three movies to tell The Hobbit. Seriously, if you can do The Lord of the Rings in three, you ought to be able to do The Hobbit in fewer.

And wait, if all we know for sure so far about Tauriel is that she's in a toy set with Legolas, how do we even know it's a strong female role? Leggy isn't a particularly strong male role, let's not forget. For all we know, she's gratuitous eye-candy. Oh, and an excuse for more merchandise, obviously.

I don't understand what you're calling an evolution of Tolkien's legendarium. The only person entitled to develop or add to Tolkien's body of works is Tolkien, and seeing as he's deceased, that's pretty much not possible. Adaptations of it are possible. Spin-offs, perhaps—you know, if PJ just wanted to tell the tale of Tauriel, Warrior Maid of Mirkwood, that could be fine on its own. The fandom and its perceptions can evolve. But Tolkien's legendarium can't evolve without its creator.

Heck, what's Legolas doing in it, for that matter? I mean, if we're just going to get a glimpse of him in Thranduil's hall, okay, he'd logically be there, but surprising as this may be, I don't trust Peter Jackson that much. -_-;

... Although, there is one thing that might make me excuse Tauriel's presence. It would amuse me greatly if she turns out to be Legolas' wife. Just imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth among the fanbrats, and the exultation of movieverse agents with an all-new reason to persecute Legomance Sues with extreme prejudice. *eg*

But really, I think PJ should just write his own original story and make a movie of it, since he clearly isn't interested in making movies of Tolkien's works. He could make an all-female quest-based fantasy epic, even. Or would that have to have a Token Strong Male Character thrown in to be marketable and show that gender equality is a thing in the Real World?

... I'm going to be lynched for that one. Unless, of course, I miraculously get across my point that throwing in a Token Strong Female Character where the plot doesn't call for one is pretty silly, since it isn't going to do the character or women in general any justice at all.

... Nah, I'm gonna be lynched. It'll be my punishment for breaking hiatus again before I'm ready, and late at night, too, when I can't keep myself from train of thought rambling that probably doesn't make any sense.

Look, I just want to watch Bilbo the Hobbit get dragged along on a Quest with a bunch of silly Dwarves and have Adventures and find a Magic Ring and save Everyone's Butts, and I know that isn't what I'm going to get, because PJ already proved he can't be trusted with the LotR movies. And now I have to worry about being judged insufficiently feminist because I don't want gratuitous non-existent elf characters thrown in, too. I'm not looking forward to this, you guys. {= (

~Neshomeh

On Elves and Dwarves and Suchlike by Huinesoron on 2012-09-19 20:08:00 UTC Reply

Since, as noted, The Hobbit is becoming a trilogy, there's a lot of fleshing-out to be done. I've thought over where that could happen, and there's really only a few options.

-The Woodland Kingdom is the first place the story 'breaks' - we're told, very briefly, that Bilbo lives as an invisible thief for a while, then he finds out where the dwarves are. That /will/ need fleshing out, to make it work in film - particularly if it's three films - and that means you need to add named characters.

Remember, there are only five Mirkwood characters who even have an identity in the entire legendarium. There's Thranduil's father - who's dead - Thranduil himself, and Legolas. Then there's the butler and the guard from The Hobbit. No names are given in that book - at all. So yeah, people will need adding... and one thing Tolkien noted but never made very much of was the fact that, among the Eldar at least (and I know the inhabitants of Mirkwood are mostly Silvan elves, but the Eldar are all we have to go on), the differences between male and female roles are very slight. So yeah, there'd be a bunch of women Doing Stuff. And I suspect this section will be very fleshed out, to set things up for...

-The Siege of the Mountain & Battle of Five Armies. It's inevitable that the B5A will be a massive part of the final film (this is PJ, after all), and that means we want characters we know to watch. And that means they'll be adding people - and, given the fandom, that means elves. So the fleshed-out elves from Bilbo's stay will get a new lease in the Battle. Yes, Legolas will certainly do some trick shooting - and I wouldn't be surprised to see this Tauriel do the same thing. Nor, actually, would I object - someone like her would have existed, after all.

My main objection, actually, is that name. It's in the wrong language (Sindarin, not the Silvan Legolas is named in), and... well, it means 'Forest maiden'. It's a stupid name. Almost as bad as, say, 'Green leaf'... ohwait.

But still. With all the infinite variety of Sindarin to work with, they chose something /that/ basic? Nah. Not 'avin' it.

hS

PS: I'd be intrigued to know why you even /think/ PJ has an obsession with making Strong Female Characters (TM). You come back to this several times, and... er, is it based on anything more than Arwen The Horse-Thief, a named female elf, and masses of experience with fandom (of which I doubt PJ is a part)?

PPS: Lily, I'm terribly disappointed in you. No, not really, but... did you /really/ think you could get away with dismissing Luthien Tinuviel as just 'the love interest'? Really? The girl who took on (count them) the greatest Elvenking in Beleriand - who happened to be her dad - two sons of Feanor, both Dark Lords, and the Doomsman of the Valar - and won every time? And found time to pull off at least three major healings at the times she was as far from calm as she got - and, again, managed all of them? Seriously?

(In contrast, even I have to admit that Beren was fairly useless. Um, let's see... driven out of two Elven cities and his own country, captured by Sauron (and got all his companions killed), tagged along a lot... knocked over a horse and cut a stone off a crown, that was kind of cool... nearly died (three times)... watched his dog kill a wolf... did die... yeah, I love the guy, but he was a bit of a disaster) ~hS

To clarify by Neshomeh on 2012-09-20 04:03:00 UTC Reply

I didn't mean to say I think PJ is obsessed with inserting strong female characters. I was running with the premise that Tauriel is supposed to be one because Lily proposed it in her post, that's all. 'Course, I do think PJ is obsessed with "improving" things Because He Can, and there's at least a chance it will amount to the same thing in this case. We'll just have to wait and see.

I may also be a teensy little bit paranoid about all this, let's just make that clear before going any further. >.>

What you've said makes some sense in terms of what could happen, but I don't agree that those choices are necessary to tell the story in film. For one, I wouldn't personally spend a lot of time expanding Bilbo's stay in Thranduil's halls. I can't imagine skulking around invisibly and stealing food in between wandering passageways in search of dwarves would be very riveting very long. The passage of time could be shown with a montage, or a series of short scenes. Another option would be to just speed everything up, make it take a few days instead of a few weeks. (It wouldn't surprise me if PJ took this approach; he's played a little fast and loose with timelines before.) None of these would require new named characters. As far as Bilbo is concerned, they're just a bunch of random elves anyway.

There is one other named Mirkwood elf, though: Galion, the guy in charge of the barrels.

Not that he's going to turn up in the Battle of Five Armies. I don't think there's a special need of additional named people to watch there either, though, between Bilbo, Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Óin, Glóin, Kíli, Fíli, Ori, Dori, Nori, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Gandalf, Thranduil, Bard, Beorn, and Gwaihir. That's twenty people we will have encountered before and presumably have some stake in by the point of the battle, I hope. And there's Dáin, too, and Bolg. That's a lot of names to follow already. And I do expect it to be quite a spectacle, whatever else happens.

I don't expect what I think necessary to have any bearing on what actually happens, though. That's what has me worried. {= P

~Neshomeh, hopefully making slightly more sense now.

Poor Galion, always forgotten. by Huinesoron on 2012-09-20 07:55:00 UTC Reply

And yeah, I agree that it doesn't need doing to tell the story per se - but to stretch it out over three films, it probably does.

One thing I kind of glossed over was the Siege. Particularly, the planning sessions after Bilbo leaves the Mountain. That's the other part I'm expecting him to expand - and most of our named cast aren't in that (Bard, Thranduil... Bilbo? And Gandalf-in-disguise), so it makes sense to add new ones.

And the other thing that people have sort of hinted at without saying: if Mithrandir's going to be chucking out the Lord of Werewolves, it's entirely possible she's an elf from Mirkwood or Lorien taking part in that. In fact, if I was desperate to keep the Hobbit-storyline as close to the book as possible, that's where I'd put Legolas, too.

hS

There's a Lord of Werewolves? by Neshomeh on 2012-09-20 20:21:00 UTC Reply

Is that a title of Sauron I haven't heard before (or possibly forgot)? And are there actual werewolves running around in southern Mirkwood? I have a Sue who might need to be introduced....

I could deal with Legolas and new characters down dealing with that, I think. Wouldn't necessarily stop them from being at the Battle of Five Armies, either—Gandalf gets there in lots of time, why not them?

So yes, there are ways this COULD be done well, without Tauriel being a Sue or a throwaway role.

We probably won't find out in this first film, come to think of it. Anyone know how it's being divided up? My guess would be Hobbiton to escaping the Goblins in the first film, ending on a cliffhanger with the party heading into Mirkwood and Gandalf riding off on his business in the south; the journey through Mirkwood to the Lonely Mountain and Gandalf's doings in the second, culminating with Smaug's attack; and then the third being mostly concerned with the siege and the battle. Maybe we'll get to see Bilbo take on the thieving Sackville-Bagginses at the end. That would be a fun way to crown his character arc.

Hopefully they are less than three hours long each.

~Neshomeh

It was... by Huinesoron on 2012-09-20 20:49:00 UTC Reply

... his title in the First Age. What exactly a werewolf is (it appears to be basically equivalent to 'Warg' or 'Dire Wolf') and whether he picked it up again in Dol Guldur is debatable. Knowing him, I'd say yes, probably.

(Actually, 'werewolf' isn't even debatable: Carcharoth-the-Red-Maw was sired by Draugluin, who was the chief of Sauron's werewolves. I think if he had possessed any powers beyond Really Big Wolf, the First Age would have gone a bit differently. Obviously Sauron(/Gorthaur) could transform... but he's Sauron)

From the trailer, it looks like the rescue-by-eagle might well be the very end of 1. That would allow for a gentle opening on 2 (Beorn, if he's in there?), and would explain the lack of Beorn/Mirkwood shots in the trailer. I'm tossing a coin on whether they end 2 with the start of the journey to the Mountain, or with the death of Smaug as you suggest. I'm guessing the former, since 3 being /entirely/ B5A would be a bit much - and, with Gandalf off being busy, they'll be pressed for time otherwise.

hS

Regarding Werewolves by desdendelle on 2012-09-21 18:50:00 UTC Reply

The Silmarilion says that werewolves are 'fell beasts inhabited by dreadful spirits that he (Sauron) had imprisoned in their bodies.' (You can find this in the part about Beren being an outlaw in Dorthonion.)
So they seem like Dire Wolves possessed by demons (inasmuch the Tolkienverse has demons) more than anything else to me.

Erp, I didn't mean to couch her as /just/ the love interest by Lily Winterwood on 2012-09-19 21:09:00 UTC Reply

I meant to point out that she is Edith Tolkien on a very Elvish pedestal. And she is extremely kick-ass. Moreso than Beren, I believe, even if a good majority of her actions are carried out because of her love for Beren. Love is an extremely powerful motivator, yes, but it does make it seem like kicking ass in the name of love is all she does.
I am probably reading it all wrong and Beren is her love interest moreso than vice versa ;P

Anyway, I agree with you on the stance on the Mirkwood Elves - if PJ absobloodylutely /must/ have a huge Mirkwood section for his extended Hobbit (seriously three movies for one book is a bit overblowing it; he must have liked every scene they tried to film or something), there probably should be some names for those faces, or a personality at the very least. We don't know enough about Tauriel to make judgement on whether or not she's good for the plot so yeah.

In any case, PJ Y U NO FILM OLD FOREST IN FOTR, THEN? If we knew you were so capable of overblowing the shit out of books WHY DID YOU LEAVE OUT TOM BOMBADIL /sobs

Why would you be lynched? by ShatteredSanity on 2012-09-19 16:24:00 UTC Reply

What you're saying makes sense. You don't want an original character added where it isn't needed.

I haven't actually read the LoTR books (I couldn't get past Tolkein's writing style but I have read The Hobbit and have listened to some of a book-on-tape of The Silmarillion.) so I don't know what you're talking about when you say that you don't trust P.J. with the movie.

I agree about how he's making it a trilogy though. From what I remember The Hobbit was relatively straight forward. In order to be three movies, there's going to have to be a lot of filler.

Well... by Neshomeh on 2012-09-20 04:38:00 UTC Reply

At one point I suggested that, if inserting a token male character into an otherwise-female cast would be silly, then inserting a token female character into an otherwise-male cast should be silly, too. There's a flaw inherent in this line of thinking: namely, that our present society is not equal, so they're not quite the same beast in the cold light of reality, and my comparison seems to suggest that they are. I've heard about people being raked over the coals for that sort of thing on this here Interweb.

Whether Tauriel is just a token female character remains to be seen. It'll depend on whether she's only there to look pretty and/or to go "Look at me, I am girl power!", or to actually do something that makes logical, plot-relevant sense for an Elven warrior. Without, preferably, distracting from Bilbo's story.

~Neshomeh

...Yeah, pretty much what you said. by VixenMage on 2012-09-19 07:34:00 UTC Reply

I must admit, first off, that my immediate reaction to any and all changes to Tolkien's works tend to be thus:

1) "They're doing WHAT?!"
2) "How DARE they?!"
3) "Ye gods and little fishes, can they NEVER let well enough alone?"
4) *sigh.* "Well, it could be worse. And this isn't all a bad trade-off, I... I guess."

I'm all for more female roles in fantasy - heck, all you have to do is read everything I've said about Mary Sues in the past month here to know that - but Tolkien's work approaches something... I dunno. 'Sacred' is probably the wrong word, but it's something very special and important, and the knowledge that there are going to be kids who think PJ's works are the originals/the important ones, and so the changes are worse, somehow.

Basically, it would be cool to see, as Neshomeh pointed out, The Hobbit with some of the glossed-over bits stretched out - named warriors in Mirkwood, the character development surrounding Thorin's audience with Thranduil, and yes, even The Stuff Gandalf Left To Accomplish. And I think a Tauriel would fit very nicely in such a narrative.

...but I somehow can't bring myself to that level of optimism. It's probably going to be really frustrating, and the friend I'd planned to see it with made me promise in advance not to complain about the story not matching the book well enough. So... um, yeah, not entirely optimistic anymore.

Yeah. by Neshomeh on 2012-09-20 04:51:00 UTC Reply

Really, it's Peter Jackson that scares me. I don't trust this not to be another case of Haldir at Helm's Deep: out of place, overblown, and senseless.

I mean, if he wanted Elves and Men fighting and dying side by side, he could've done it at the Battle of the Morannon instead. That at least would carry more weight symbolically, and it wouldn't be so worrying that the elves had abandoned the defense of their own borders, because if Sauron wasn't defeated at that point there wasn't any hope left anyway. There would still be the question of how they knew to get there in time, but I dunno, maybe Gandalf arranged it?

But, yeah. Don't trust PJ. It pretty much all boils down to that.

~Neshomeh