Itaril

[Peterson_Hobbit]

Can someone please remind md who Itaril is in The Hobbit? I do not have a copy handy while i'm traveling.

Cheers!

[Inziladun]

First off, welcome to the Downs!

I am aware of no such person in The Hobbit, at least as far as the book is concerned.

[Pitchwife]

Welcome to the Downs, Peterson_Hobbit!
The Shibboleth of Fëanor gives Itaril (or Itarillë) as the Quenya form of the name Idril, Turgon of Gondolin's daughter, who married Tuor and became Eärendil's mother. Like Inzil has already said, she has no part whatsoever in The Hobbit.

A quick google search of "Itaril hobbit", however, revealed this:
[ITARIL] FEMALE, A WOODLAND ELF, this character is one the Silvan Elves. The Silvan Elves are seen as more earthy and practical. Shorter than other elves, she is still quick and lithe and physically adept, being able to fight with both sword and bow. Showing promise as a fighter at a young age, ITARIL was chosen to train to become part of the Woodland King’s Guard. This is the only life she has ever expected to live, until she meets and secretly falls in love with a young ELF LORD. This role will require a wig and contact lenses to be worn. Some prosthetic make-up may also be required. LEAD. AGE: 17-27. ACCENT – STANDARD R.P.

So it seems like PJ & Co. nicked the name for some token female Elf who wasn't in the book either, but whose presence is presumed necessary in order to feed the unwashed movie-watching masses' hunger for on-screen romance. I'm afraid it takes no extraordinary sagacity to guess who the "young Elf lord" she falls in love with is going to be... *shudder*

[Rumil]

And so it begins! :rolleyes:

[Inziladun]

And so it begins! :rolleyes:

But where will it end? With Bilbo crashing the auction and dueling with Otho Sackville-Baggins, who is really possessed by Saruman, and is also Gollum's father? :eek:

I really don't see why they have to do that sort of rubbish. I hope that particular character will be left on the cutting-room floor.

[Mithalwen]

And the laws of Hollywood mean it is fine for a 17 year old to play the love interest of a guy twice her age......eww

[Rumil]

Yeah but they'll both be portraying 3000-year olds ;)

(Though the evidence is ambiguous on LG's side iirc)

[Alcuin]

Why doesn’t Hollywood just dispense with all this pretense and do what it really wants to do – make Bored of the Rings (http://www.amazon.com/Bored-Rings-Parody-Tolkiens-Lord/dp/0451452615/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1296790932&sr=8-1) instead. From “Of the Finding of the Ring”, As is told in the volume previous to this hound, Valley of the Trolls, Dildo Bugger set out one day with a band of demented dwarves and a discredited Rosicrucian named Goodgulf to separate a dragon from his hoard of short-term municipals and convertible debentures. The quest was successful, and the dragon, a prewar basilisk who smelled like a bus, was taken from behind while he was clipping coupons...Surely this is more along the lines of “modern cinema”. Sex sells. So get rid of all this nonsense about “sticking to the story”, and let them … hm … dress it up a bit. Or sell out to Disney. Whatever makes the biggest buck in the shortest time.

After all, how many Hollywood producers have ever actually read a book? Considering the quality of their productions, how many of them actually read? Their lawyers – they can read, of course, but … stick to a story? That’s so gauche! Bring out the voluptuous elf-maidens! Bring out your dead! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs)

[FeRaL sHaDoW]

This always happens in movies to make it more interesting :/ i got 20 riding on we see Legolas in the Hobbit.

[skip spence]

Oh dear, this sounds terrible.

Well, no surprise I guess, in a big block-buster these days there has to be a strong, female character to appeal to a very profitable demographic group. :rolleyes:

Mind you, a few plot changes and a couple of new characters aren't inherently bad in my opinion, it could make the film more enjoyable not knowing every twist and turn beforehand. That said, chances are they eff it up. Badly.

[Alcuin]

Then Eorache daughter of Eorlobe is exactly what Hollywood needs! More from “The Riders of Roi-Tan” (ibid.), As they watched helplessly, the line of riders bore down upon them. Suddenly the centermost figure, whose spiked helmet also boasted two longhorns, gave a vague hand signal to halt and the men reined to a stop in a display of astoundingly inept sheepmanship. … [T]he pronged leader cantered up to the three astride a bull merino of great stature and whiteness, its tail intricately braided with colored rubber bands. … The leader, shorter than the others by a head, looked at them suspiciously through twin monocles and brandished a battlemop. It was then that the company realized that the leader was a woman, a woman whose ample breastplate hinted at a figure of some heft.

“Vere ist you going and vat are you doing here when you are not to being here in der first place vhere you ist?” the leader demanded…

Stomper stepped forward and bowed low… “Hail and greeting, O Lady,” lisped Stomper... “We are wayfarers in your land searching for friends taken by the foul narcs of Sorhed and Serutan. … They are three feet tall with hairy feet and little tails, probably dressed in elvin cloaks…”

The captain of the sheepmen stared at the Ranger dumbly, then turning to her own company beckoned a rider. “Medic! Hurry up, I haf vork for you. Und he ist delirious, also!”

“Nay, beautiful Lady,” said Stomper, “they of whom I speak are boggies, or in the tongue of the elves, hoipolloi. I am their guide, who am called Stomper by some, though I have many names.”

“I bet you do,” agreed the leader, tossing her golden braids. … “I ist Eorache, daughter of Eorlobe, Captain of der Rubbermark and Thane of Chowder…”See? Ready-made Hollywood heroine with minimum rewrite. And if they want more, the sheep can dance.

[Thinlómien]

Ugh. And if IMDb is to believed, this Itaril will be played by the now 16-year-old Saoirse Ronan...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/

[Inziladun]

Ugh. And if IMDb is to believed, this Itaril will be played by the now 16-year-old Saoirse Ronan...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/

Instead of making up a character for her, I say let her be one of the residents of the Last Homely House singing "tra la la la lally", and making good-natured fun of Bilbo. :cool:

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Oh dear, this sounds terrible.

Well, no surprise I guess, in a big block-buster these days there has to be a strong, female character to appeal to a very profitable demographic group. :rolleyes:

"Strong", indeed! There has to be a female character who is young, pretty, and can use a sword (or an equivalent weapon suitable for the story). Therefore, she is a wonderful female role model, which is further emphasised by that her personality, beyond the things mentioned above, is reduced almost to zero, or even below. (Though speaking of that, not that many main male characters are much better in that regard.)

In any case, I don't know what is the reason to bring her in, but what I hate the most are these pseudo-heroines (indeed, pseudo-heroines, because on top of everything else, they are mostly just pitiful less-than-human or less-than-elf or whatnot creatures) invented out of nowhere because there weren't enough women in the books. In LotR, there were few women, but those who were there compensated with their impact and personality (thinking mainly of Galadriel, who would have sufficed for the whole book even if she was alone, and Éowyn, and Ioreth - three great personalities. Oh, and Goldberry. Rosie Cotton and Arwen in brackets, they don't stand out very much, or play any very active role). Unfortunately, there was no woman in the Hobbit (except for Belladona Took - now that would be a worthy character!), but we can surely live with that. We have learned to accept it and like the story as it is. You blasphemers go and make your own movie about something else if you don't like it.

(I have the feeling I have been here before.)

[Inziladun]

In any case, I don't know what is the reason to bring her in, but what I hate the most are these pseudo-heroines (indeed, pseudo-heroines, because on top of everything else, they are mostly just pitiful less-than-human or less-than-elf or whatnot creatures) invented out of nowhere because there weren't enough women in the books.

I wonder if Tollers really isn't trying to give PJ an indication that he does not approve (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=648554#post648554) of the former's attempts to market the book to a "modern" audience. ;)

(I have the feeling I have been here before.)

I think many have. I would say its "Arwen redux", except Arwen was at least an actual character in LOTR, albeit one that had absolutely no speaking role in the books until almost the end of the story.

[Alcuin]

Rankin/Bass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_%281977_film%29) looks more and more respectable as time goes on.

I once worked for a guy who told me to never let anyone competent take your job after you: it makes you look better by comparison.

[Dilettante]

So it seems like PJ & Co. nicked the name for some token female Elf who wasn't in the book either, but whose presence is presumed necessary in order to feed the unwashed movie-watching masses' hunger for on-screen romance. I'm afraid it takes no extraordinary sagacity to guess who the "young Elf lord" she falls in love with is going to be... *shudder*

*suppressed chuckle* How very apt a description. *SIGH* just when I thought things would turn out well too. I guess we shouldn't be surprised, everyone these days thinks they can "improve" on an already perfect story by "modernizing" it or making it relevant to today.

Good looking strong female roles are put into plots a.) to attract female viewers who want someone in the story they can relate to and b.) to attract men that want to gawk at onscreen females. Because we all know the story just isn't good enough on it's own. My money is on her falling in love with Legolas (who will probably have a scene where he's doing some smithing, because Orlando Bloom seems to play a blacksmith a lot.)

It's Arwen taking Glorfindel's part again....only worse because Arwen is at least an original character.

[Nerwen]

Showing promise as a fighter at a young age, ITARIL was chosen to train to become part of the Woodland King’s Guard. This is the only life she has ever expected to live, until she meets and secretly falls in love with a young ELF LORD.
Ha! I love the way the actual film is converging on the various hoaxes and worst-case scenarios.:D

[Morthoron]

Ha! I love the way the actual film is converging on the various hoaxes and worst-case scenarios.:D

Sadly, Nerwen, I am afraid what was mentioned is a best-case scenario, given PJ's aberrant scriptorial proclivities. :D

[skip spence]

"Strong", indeed! There has to be a female character who is young, pretty, and can use a sword (or an equivalent weapon suitable for the story). Therefore, she is a wonderful female role model
Yeah, what's the deal with that? A positive female role-model on screen has to be wafer-thin and petite yet all too adept at beating up/slicing up/shooting people, or men to be more precise. Angelina Jolie, I'm looking at you.

[Galadriel55]

I wonder how much this Itaril is going to resemble Eowyn. Let me guess...
Thranduil will die in the middle of the Battle of 5 armies.
Legolas will take over.
He'll get wounded/will be dying.
Itarill will come in her shieldwoman armour and save Legolas.
Itaril saves the day!:rolleyes:

...not.:D

PS: Shouldn't this be in the movies forum?

[Galadriel55]

PPS: I think that Itaril will be a better actor than this (http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/4623375/Geordie-the-Goat-to-star-in-Hobbit)! *and they don't even say the role here!:rolleyes:*

[Pitchwife]

I wouldn't say that - looking at that pic, Geordie does have a certain charismatic presence, wouldn't you say? As for his role, it makes me hope we'll see Beorn's housekeeping animals after all, even though it looks like Beorn himself is going to be replaced by Radagast, who I suppose will enter the Battle of Five Armies at the last moment, riding on Geordie, and save the day; Geordie of course will have the honour of finishing Bolg by running him through with his single horn.

Further speculations:

Either Itaril or Leggie or both will conspire with Bilbo to free the Dwarves, defying Thranduil's orders.
Itaril will meet a tragical heroic death in the Bo5A, causing Leggie to go berserk and vent his grief by killing a few mumakil. (What do you say, there weren't any in that battle? How narrow minded... What are a few uncanonicities among friends?)
Finally, with Leggie in the film, another bowman would be quite redundant, so guess who gets to shoot Smaug? Bingo. Bye bye Bard...

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Lord almighty. What is it with these people? If they're going to "re-imagine" a classic work of fiction into fanfic, the least they could do is steal from a good piece of fanfic rather than some godawful Mary Sue. Is that really the best these "professional" writers can do? Must go slam head into wall...

[Alcuin]

Beorn replaced by Radagast?
Well I’m aghast!

Since Beorn transformed into an enormous bear, will Radagast transform into an enormous goat?

Was it the psychedelic coloring of the goat that induced them to introduce it into the movie?

Is the “laugh-a-minute” beastie somehow an inside joke that they’ve “got Tolkien’s goat”?



As far as I am concerned personally, I should welcome the idea of an animated motion picture, with all the risk of vulgarization; and that quite apart from the glint of money… I think I should find vulgarization less painful than sillification…

[Peterson_Hobbit]

Thanks for all the great answers! Y'all are rockstars.

As you can easily surmise, my suspicions/interest around the Itaril character were aroused when I read an article about the movie and read the name: "Itaril". I couldn't remember an Itaril in The Hobbit, but, I knew a quick post out on The Downs would satisfy my query.

Thanks all!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Now that we've found out that this character name belongs to the movies, I'm moving the thread to that forum. Enjoy reading and posting there!

[Mithalwen]

I wouldn't say that - looking at that pic, Geordie does have a certain charismatic presence, wouldn't you say? As for his role, it makes me hope we'll see Beorn's housekeeping animals after all, even though it looks like Beorn himself is going to be replaced by Radagast, who I suppose will enter the Battle of Five Armies at the last moment, riding on Geordie, and save the day; Geordie of course will have the honour of finishing Bolg by running him through with his single horn.

.[/LIST]

I think Beorn has been cast ..some strapping Swedish chap whose name escapes me. Radagast is no doubt included to bulk out the white council and justify the two film thing (kerching!).

[Dimturiel]

Is it just me, or does anyone else fear that this Itaril person is going to pull an Arwen and be the one who shoots Smaug? Either that, or she's going to be the first one to discover Bilbo took Gollum's ring or something along these lines that would make the audience think that the story would not have been able to move forward without her presence (when the original story had moved forward quite nicely without her being there, thank you very much).

And why is it a requirment to have a female in every film so that the girls in the audience don't feel offended or left out because they have no one to relate to? Who would relate to her anyway? I know I won't, judging from what she sounds like. (Why would I want to relate to someone in the king's guard, waving her sword all over the place and having adventures? (shudders). Nasty things. Make you late for supper;). See? I'm already relating to one of the characters, actually, exactly to the one I - and any other pesron in the audience, because, let's be honest, we're all more hobbits than heroes - was expected to relate to in the first place). And who thought up this character anyway? She sounds like something a 13 year old would invent, trying to make up an idealised version of herself. (How old are PJ's kids now, by the way? Maybe they had a hand in inventing Itaril?;)). Believe me, I know, I used to make up characters like that too. I grew out of it. Also, one has to wonder if the population of the Woodland Elves is decreasing so dramatically, that they have to resort to employing andolescent Elf-maidens to join the King's Guard.

And ayway, would this movie - or any movie for that matter - really not sell unless it had a cheesy romance in it? I mean, to me The Hobbit was more about, well, growing up, in a way, and learning to do what's right and all that. It was originally a children's book and it was destined to entertain and teach children. It was never intended for dreamy teenagers who think the only thing that counts in this world is lurv:rolleyes:.

By the way, while I was writing this, I just had a mental image of a scene after Bilbo takes the Arkenstone, with Itaril waving it in front of Thorin, and telling him:If you want the Arkenstone, come and claim it, or something equally horrific.

[Morthoron]

Itaril has vibrant violet eyes, but because of her orphaned and violent childhood (an attack by orcs killed her parents), she is blind. But blindness in Elfesses merely grants them extraordinary psychic powers. She can actually see better blind! Riding forth from Mirkwood on her long-maned pony named Brandy (short for Brandywine), she fights injustice, wielding two Elven daggers and a bow of crystal called Teh Cuthalion.

[Bêthberry]

Itaril has vibrant violet eyes, but because of her orphaned and violent childhood (an attack by orcs killed her parents), she is blind. But blindness in Elfesses merely grants them extraordinary psychic powers. She can actually see better blind! Riding forth from Mirkwood on her long-maned pony named Brandy (short for Brandywine), she fights injustice, wielding two Elven daggers and a bow of crystal called Teh Cuthalion.

I see RPG parody potential here that would compete with MarySue Whynniel (sorry, Estelyn, I cannot remember the correct spelling of her illustrious name).

I don't think we've done role plays that parody the movies, have we? Or would that not be regarded as Canonical enough? :D

[Morthoron]

I see RPG parody potential here that would compete with MarySue Whynniel (sorry, Estelyn, I cannot remember the correct spelling of her illustrious name).

I don't think we've done role plays that parody the movies, have we? Or would that not be regarded as Canonical enough? :D

In addition, Itaril teaches Legolas how to shield surf, as well as coiffing his hair with all those lustrous plaits and braids. Such body, such bounce!

[piosenniel]

And in addition to those vibrant violet eyes, she has flame red tresses . . . :p

[Mithalwen]

She needs a trained hawk maybe....and is secretly really of extremely noble birth -why else would a silvan elf have a Quenya name? The name of Elrond's granny no less...

[Morthoron]

She needs a trained hawk maybe....and is secretly really of extremely noble birth -why else would a silvan elf have a Quenya name? The name of Elrond's granny no less...

Because, unbeknownst to us, her silvan parents -- who were killed when she was an infant -- were merely foster parents. In reality, she is Galadriel's love child! :eek:

[Galadriel55]

In reality, she is Galadriel's love child! :eek:

That would explain Galadriel's role in TH.

[Dilettante]

HARK! I think I smell a Mary-Sue. You can tell because they smell so sweet they make you nauseated.

(ROFL at all the Mary-Sue comments, I think I have read every one of those attributes in one fanfic or another. )

Really one does have to wonder what PJ and Co. are thinking. Mary-Sues are frowned upon by pretty much everyone, so I just don't get why a script writer would think they were appropriate for the silver screen. (Not that this Itarily-whatshername IS a Sue, but it's really starting to seem that way.)

I'm a female, yes, but I have no trouble at all relating to non-female characters. I relate just fine to dear old Bilbo when he's worried about adventures making one late for dinner, when 13 uninvited and unexpected guests show up and start rummaging through the kitchen (that's the stuff of nightmares) and I would certainly scream myself at the words may never return.

I can even relate a bit to that old miser Smaug who gets rather heated (literally) when a hobbit pinches a cup that he never looks at and barely remembers he owns.

Really I don't know why filmmakers think that you have to have romance to tell a good story. Frankly, romance gets a little dull and predictable after a while, there's only so much you can do with it.

[Bêthberry]

I think the truly subversive character is going to be Mrs. Smaug. :p ;)

HARK! I think I smell a Mary-Sue. You can tell because they smell so sweet they make you nauseated.

(ROFL at all the Mary-Sue comments, I think I have read every one of those attributes in one fanfic or another. )

Dilettante, if you get a bang out of Mary-Sues, do take a look at the role playing game called REB (Revenge of the Entish Bow) which was written here by diehard, absolutely canonical Tolkien fans here on the Downs. You can find the game in our Elvenhome, where finished games go: Revenge of the Entish Bow (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=5750). There's also a sequel! Enjoy!

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morthoron
Itaril has vibrant violet eyes, but because of her orphaned and violent childhood (an attack by orcs killed her parents), she is blind. But blindness in Elfesses merely grants them extraordinary psychic powers. She can actually see better blind! Riding forth from Mirkwood on her long-maned pony named Brandy (short for Brandywine), she fights injustice, wielding two Elven daggers and a bow of crystal called Teh Cuthalion.
I see RPG parody potential here that would compete with MarySue Whynniel (sorry, Estelyn, I cannot remember the correct spelling of her illustrious name).

Ahem! Mister Morthoron has in fact clearly based Itaril on this RPG character. (http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=567283&postcount=22) If only I were sixteen again, I'd threaten legal action immediately.:mad:

Setiously, Esty– remember we actually did start another parody RPG (http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=15053) a couple of years ago, only it didn't last very long. I think the problem was we went a little overboard in trying to make the characters absolutely authentic Mary Sues– they all ended up so self-absorbed they could barely interact with one another at all.

[Morthoron]

Ahem! Mister Morthoron has in fact clearly based Itaril on this RPG character. (http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=567283&postcount=22) If only I were sixteen again, I'd threaten legal action immediately.:mad:

Setiously, Esty– remember we actually did start another parody RPG (http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=15053) a couple of years ago, only it didn't last very long. I think the problem was we went a little overboard in trying to make the characters absolutely authentic Mary Sues– they all ended up so self-absorbed they could barely interact with one another at all.

But...but...my character, Amarthanuin the Noegedhil, had to be self-absorbed -- he was a Dwelf, for pity's sake! A Dwelf can do aught but languish in angst!

And yes, like a drunken sword-swallower on the Titanic, that story was a disaster waiting to happen.;)

[Oddwen]

Showing promise as a fighter at a young age, ITARIL was chosen to train to become part of the Woodland King’s Guard. This is the only life she has ever expected to live, until she meets and secretly falls in love with a young ELF LORD.

Well, so long as it's so secret we never get a whiff of it...

Or maybe she will be shown in flashback as the love of Thranduil.

Welp. I'll see it in the theater, buy it, and then never be able to read The Hobbit again, just like LotR. Thanks PJ.

[Galadriel55]

Welp. I'll see it in the theater, buy it, and then never be able to read The Hobbit again, just like LotR.

I thought it was going to be "never be able to watch it again"!

[Galadriel]

Well, no surprise I guess, in a big block-buster these days there has to be a strong, female character to appeal to a very profitable demographic group. :rolleyes:

Apparently, females can only be 'strong' when they wield a sword and ride a horse better than Glorfindel :rolleyes: I just can't understand why...

[Galadriel]

[QUOTE=Galadriel55;649097]Thranduil will die in the middle of the Battle of 5 armies.
Legolas will take over.
He'll get wounded/will be dying./QUOTE]

Lol, if Legolas takes over the fangurls will pounce on PJ demanding to know why Legolas wasn't treated like a king in the trilogy :rolleyes:

[Jolly Cotton]

It's not surprising that PJ is creating a new fictional character (it's a fictional book remember guys!), I mean this is PJ. The same PJ who reduced Merry and Pippin to comic relief. The very same left out the proper end of the story!

So now we have Frodo (albeit for a very short time at the start), Legolas, and now an elfmadien. Next PJ will realise a statement saying RicK Astley will produce the soundtrack...! :eek:

[Mnemosyne]

Next PJ will realise a statement saying RicK Astley will produce the soundtrack...! :eek:

And then Legolas can sing to Itaril how he's never gonna give her up!!

Of course, one of my friends astutely pointed out that on IMDB (which is ever so reliable at the moment) Itaril's only listed for the first film... if so, I don't know what's better, her not being in the second film, or the high chances of her dying tragically in the first!

Welcome to the 'Downs, Jolly, and I hope you enjoy being dead!

[Galadriel]

And then Legolas can sing to Itaril how he's never gonna give her up!!

Better than that, during the Battle of Five Armies Itaril can leap in front of Legolas and say while she is wheezing her last wheeze, "*gasp* Some people *choke* do crazy things *snort* when they're in love."

[Dimturiel]

Maybe the fact that Itaril will fall for Legolas (assuming it's him, but I'm 99% sure it really is) is not that bad. I mean, think of this: she could have fallen for Bilbo instead:eek:. Or she could have been Thorin's love interest and convince him to renounce his greedy ways (then, of course, she will be quickly dismissed from the king's guard, because seriously now, a relationship between a member of Thranduil's guard and a dwarf?. How positively scandalous!). See? It could always be worse:D.

[Elfchick7]

Or she could have been Thorin's love interest and convince him to renounce his greedy ways.

I mean, I'd fall for Thorin if he's played by Richard Armitage. :P

Seriously, though, I really hope that P.J. doesn't screw up this story too much. I thought that he did a fairly decent job with LOTR, in spite of some painful character rewrites, but from what I've been hearing, I'm more than a little worried about the fate of the hobbit.

[Galadriel]

Or she could have been Thorin's love interest and convince him to renounce his greedy ways (then, of course, she will be quickly dismissed from the king's guard, because seriously now, a relationship between a member of Thranduil's guard and a dwarf?. How positively scandalous!). See? It could always be worse:D.

No, actually, that would be better!

[xMellrynxMaidenx]

Well I say she should have been Bombur's love interest instead.

Coax him into joining weight watchers and the like...;)

Poor Tolkien is probably doing back flips, front flips, cartwheels and any other type of exercise you can think of, in his grave currently. I'm not against her completely, but I knew something like this would happen, given you don't see any females- save for Lobelia (sp?) I think- in the book (rather, none that Tolkien had paid specific attention to).

Knowing PJ's track record, Leggy and Itaril will be out fighting heck off hinges in the Bot5A and she'll do exactly what Galadriel said:

Better than that, during the Battle of Five Armies Itaril can leap in front of Legolas and say while she is wheezing her last wheeze, "*gasp* Some people *choke* do crazy things *snort* when they're in love."

[Galadriel55]

How about Bilbo's long lost ex-wife? :eek:

"Bilbo, honey, do bring me the Arkenstone, please. It would make me really happy. There you go! You've always been a good boy."
*makes retching noises*

[Galadriel55]

Ronan didn't sign the contract yet! She says here (http://www.irishcentral.com/ent/Saoirse-Ronan-says-she-still-hasnt-signed-on-for-Peter-Jacksons-The-Hobbit--116390919.html) that she will play Itaril, but what if she changes her mind all of a sudden?:eek::rolleyes::D

[Erendis]

Allright,we will have a kick-*** Mary Sue,Legolas in love,a disapproving Thranduil-because the bad ada-in-law is also essential-,and a single-horned goat.Splendid!

By the way,I have two additions here:
a)Aragorn in the love story causing a love triangle because Itaril has a taste for early teenagers.Legolas keeps a grudge and guess how Gollum escaped:D
b)Since the goat is multicoloured,she must be the pet of Saruman of Many Colours.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

The very name of the character sounds like a synthetic drug with numerous debilitating side-effects, something like Sildenafil: a drug first developed to treat angina but, because of its unanticipated side effects, marketed instead as an oral treatment for erectile dysfunction -- notwithstanding "reports of vision loss in people taking PDE5 inhibitors" (Wikipedia).

Since Tolkien's Elves have pretty much given up on Middle-earth and haven't reproduced much in several thousand years, the whole concept of "young" elves who "fall in love" with each other (before catching the last boat to the Undying Lands) sounds too ludicrous to contemplate. Nonetheless, even the ridiculous can inspire poetic -- if not pharmacological -- possibilities. Consider:

"Elvish Erectile Dysfunction"

Itaril,
What cheesy swill:
A damsel dim and shallow.

Itaril,
Sildenafil:
Viagra for the fallow.

Itaril,
Progammed to kill,
Yet gooey as marshmallow.

Itaril,
An elf-chick thrill,
Synthetic, sick, and hollow.

Itaril,
A bitter pill,
Impossible to swallow.

Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2011

[Galadriel55]

Welcome to the 'Downs, Misfortune Teller! Enjoy being among the dead! :p


The very name of the character sounds like a synthetic drug with numerous debilitating side-effects, something like Sildenafil

I think her name in the books was Itarille in Quenya and Idril is Sindarin. PJ shortened the Quenya version to fit his character. Itarille sounds rather nice...

PS: I love your poem!

[Mithalwen]

Ronan didn't sign the contract yet! She says here (http://www.irishcentral.com/ent/Saoirse-Ronan-says-she-still-hasnt-signed-on-for-Peter-Jacksons-The-Hobbit--116390919.html) that she will play Itaril, but what if she changes her mind all of a sudden?

Maybe it isn't her? I wonder if they are having second thoughts. I am not a huge fan of the films - I haven't watched the later ones all the way through since I saw them in the cinema. So I am probably very out of touch with the zeitgeist of the people who really like the films, but has anyone been enthusiastic about the Itaril role? They did change the Arwen Warrior princesss scenario. However they do have 2 films to fill now... so presumably have to make up some drivel.;)

Also with PJ's surgery and juggling Martin Freeman's commitment to Sherlock (26 weeks of this year!) it may be difficult to firm up the contracts of actors playing relatively peripheral characters but who maybe otherwise in demand. After all if you want the likes of Cate Blanchett to do a cameo you probably have to film it when it suits her even if you are Peter Jackson.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

When I first got wind of this transparent travesty, I thought: "Oh, sure. And you might as well let Vicky Vale into the Bat Cave and Lois Lane into the Fortress of Solitude while you're at it." Then I remembered that someone actually did those dreadful deeds -- and made lots of money doing them. Consequently (as a form of D.I.Y. psychotherapy for literary depression), I thought of:

"Androgynous Casting Calls"

A casting call went out one day,
An actress wanted to portray
A crappy Hollywood cliché,
A role called Mary Sue:
A female elf, both fell and fey,
And young, as well, which is to say,
In love, and thus all hot to slay
Whatever troll gets in the way
Between her and her Elf Lord gay --

"Oh, what's a girl to do?"

"For if my lord loves him, not me,
Or -- even worse -- a Dwarf or tree,
What good can Kung-Fu training be
If I don't get some kissing?"

Yet few who know would disagree
That half-a-billion budgets free
Directors from Earth’s gravity.
So killer-elf-chick scenes we’ll see
With young elf lords AC/DC:
The Hobbit as some bad TV,
Discounted soon on DVD –

With only Tolkien missing.

Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2011

[Galadriel55]

Amazing poetry!
I have one question for you, though - why be inspired by an unexisting character in the books and an unexisting one yet in the movies, just out of curiosity?

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

I have one question for you, though - why be inspired by an unexisting character in the books and an unexisting one yet in the movies, just out of curiosity?

First off, I would find human wisdom, compassion, and love inspiring, too -- if I could locate suitable examples. Unfortunately, I have to work with the material at hand.

Second, I continue checking on the IMDB (Internet Movie Database) website -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/fullcredits -- where I continue to see the pseudo-role of "Itaril" associated with the name of teenage actress Saoirse Ronan. Absent any official denial, I have to take this cast listing as evidence of "existence" in the forthcoming films.

Third, I must assume -- in accordance with Murphy's Law -- that anything the film makers CAN do wrong, they WILL do wrong. As a specific example of this universal truism, I submit the recent collaboration between Peter Jackson and Saoirse Ronan that resulted in the critical and box-office turkey known as "The Lovely Skeleton" (or something like that).

Finally, apart from writing verse as a form of self-help psychotherapy, I wish to do my part in a campaign of guerrilla preemptive lampooning: one that effectively articulates the utter absurdity of including a fan-girl love-interest "warrior" into a simple story that neither needs nor can likely survive such moronic meddling. Hopefully, if enough concerned cinema consumers protest loudly and long enough, someone in a position to scrap this stupidity will come to their senses and do so. Consequently, I offer another poetic polemic, entitled:

"Implausible Cliché Scenarios"

She thought she'd live a life of dedication
To fighting in her Woodland King's defense
But found that exercise and perspiration
Brought little in the way of compensation
And left her feeling frustrated and tense.

A young Elf Lord then made his due appearance
Which caused the Lovely Skeleton to swoon
And fantasize that with some perseverance
She might obtain her king's discharge and clearance
To consummate some "love" beneath the moon.

But she had signed a contract with conditions:
Like, "No liaisons with the royalty!"
In order to avoid undue suspicions
That hanky-panky might screw up the missions,
Morale required enforced celibacy.

However, girls can dream about "romances"
With young Elf lords so eager to undress.
What talent lacks, some pulchritude enhances,
And starting near the top improves the chances
For sleeping up the ladder of success.

Then Bilbo, Gandalf, and some dwarves upended
Her dreams when they came blundering on scene.
And thus she found her reveries suspended
When duty called and greedy foes contended
For treasure guarded by a dragon mean.

She suited up for fighting then, deflated,
For as her part demanded, she must die.
The writers of the script had her created
To love a young Elf Lord she never dated
While only grinning goblins said: "Goodbye!"

So do not ask and do not tell the story
Of what transpires when elf-chicks "love" and "fight."
No cliché in the gimmick inventory,
By age and repetition rendered hoary
Can compensate with heat for lack of light.

Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2011

[Morthoron]

With all this Mary-Sue meter, I believe a Clerihew is called for:

Of the dubious character Itaril,
Some may call her a bitter pill;
Yet along came Saoirse Ronan
To play this Elfess Conan.

[Galadriel55]

Itaril (or Saoirse Ronan) should be proud to have a thread full of poetry devoted to her! :D:Merisu:

[Galadriel]

Itaril (or Saoirse Ronan) should be proud to have a thread full of poetry devoted to her! :D:Merisu:

Not just proud, but honoured that she has a thread full of poetry devoted to her by (mostly) purists. ;)

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

You misunderstand. Not poetry devoted to her, but a polemic aimed at her. Therein lies a world of difference. I guess I'd better try again with:

The Lovely Elf-Chick Security Guard

I didn't see The Lovely Fossil movie.
The subject of the film did not appeal.
Dead girls reanimated "up in heaven"?
You must be joking, Peter. Please get real.

And now you want to screw up Tolkien's Hobbit
By writing in a role that isn't clear?
Just for an actress who has played a dead girl?
(And not to great success, or so I hear.)

I know you'd like to make a ton of money
With all the franchise toys and games and such.
But elf-chick Barbie Dolls sold at McDonalds?
You really don't think that's a bit too much?

And what gives with this Young Elf Lord we've heard of?
Her "secret" love for him just reeks of cheese.
The last we heard he had a Dwarf companion
Whom he preferred to everything but trees.

So after she's killed Smaug and giant spiders;
Slayed orcs and goblins, wargs, and evil men,
While saving Middle Earth and Bilbo Baggins
And Gandalf and some Dwarves -- what happens then?

It seems that you don't have much of a story
From which to make two films where one would do
And therefore need "additions" to "improve" things
To which this Tolkien "purist" says: screw you!

Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2011

[Galadriel55]

I wish PJ would read that! :p

[tylerfh]

And who thought up this character anyway? She sounds like something a 13 year old would invent, trying to make up an idealised version of herself.
...
And ayway, would this movie - or any movie for that matter - really not sell unless it had a cheesy romance in it?

EXACTLY!!! When I read the casting call about Itaril falling in love with a young elf-lord, all I could picture was the screaming adolescent Twilight fangirls. *puts finger down throat*

If they reduce a part of the GREATEST FANTASY CANON EVER WRITTEN to that level, I'm sending some people to see ol' Mandos. If it's absolutely necessary to have a romance in the movies, cheat on the chronology a little and put in how Arwen and Aragorn met. Anything would be better...And if they're looking for side-plot material, there's plenty of stuff to fill up space: Smaug's attack on the dwarves, the dwarves' war with the goblins, the White Council, Sauron in Dol-Guldur, Gollum's capture by Gandalf afterwards...I could go on.

I've created a page on Facebook, and maybe if enough people join it will send a message to PJ and company:
www.facebook.com/Hobbit.Fans.Against.Itaril
everyone join if you want Itaril cut out!

[Bêthberry]

What's needed is something in keeping with old fairy tales.

We have Luthien doing her Rapunzel bit.

What The Hobbit's dwarves need is a good housekeeper.*runs off to figure out the Sindarin or Quenya for "Snow White"* :D

[narfforc]

Maybe Glosfaen/Losfain.... any thoughts?

[Morthoron]

What's needed is something in keeping with old fairy tales.

What about a WitchKing that eats Hobbits who have nibbled on his gingerbread barrow? Or perhaps a wooden Legolas yearning to be a real boy?

[xMellrynxMaidenx]

EXACTLY!!! When I read the casting call about Itaril falling in love with a young elf-lord, all I could picture was the screaming adolescent Twilight fangirls. *puts finger down throat*

If they reduce a part of the GREATEST FANTASY CANON EVER WRITTEN to that level, I'm sending some people to see ol' Mandos. If it's absolutely necessary to have a romance in the movies, cheat on the chronology a little and put in how Arwen and Aragorn met. Anything would be better...And if they're looking for side-plot material, there's plenty of stuff to fill up space: Smaug's attack on the dwarves, the dwarves' war with the goblins, the White Council, Sauron in Dol-Guldur, Gollum's capture by Gandalf afterwards...I could go on.

I've created a page on Facebook, and maybe if enough people join it will send a message to PJ and company:
www.facebook.com/Hobbit.Fans.Against.Itaril
everyone join if you want Itaril cut out!

After watching the latest Hobbitin5 video, they are adding in the bit with the White Council, which should be interesting to see.

My views on Itaril are neutral now. I mean, as long as PJ doesn't twist and mangle the main plot-line violently, tossing her in doesn't bother me as much as it did before. As of yet, I don't think Orlie will be in the movie (which we all know he's the young elf-lord, who else? Then again, it could be one of the twin sons...you never know, PJ would do it), so I don't think it will focus too much on that. Bard the Bowman is too much of a main character to give his role away to someone else (IE Glorfindel's role was given to Arwen in the movies, in which PJ did that simply for the romance of Arwen and Aragorn*). Concerning Glorfindel's role, WE know as fans of the book-verse that his role is important, but the main thing I think PJ saw was that it was small.

If memory serves me correct, Glorfindel at the request of Lord Elrond, rode out to help Frodo reach Rivendell (I've not made it far after this in re-reading the series, so if I'm wrong someone please re-freshen my memory). A role as small as that (no matter the importance of the person) can be given away to another character. I'm not saying it was okay and that it should have been given away, because personally I don't understand PJ casting someone as Glorfindel in the movies and NOT giving that person their rightful role in the first place. The main reason, no doubt, was for the romance. Bard the Bowman, however, plays a bigger role in the Hobbit.


At least someone was brave enough to bring this wonderful world alive for us; it's definitely not easy. Sure, they could be a bit more correct with certain scenes, but the thing that counts is that at least WE know what really happened.

* My assumption

Edit: I'm uncertain, after re-reading my post, that the twin sons possibly wasn't even born at the time (though I think they may have been, the Hobbit began 55 -?- years before the Lord of the Rings and the Twin Sons were born in 130 TA)

[Estelyn Telcontar]

What's needed is something in keeping with old fairy tales.

What The Hobbit's dwarves need is a good housekeeper.*runs off to figure out the Sindarin or Quenya for "Snow White"* :D

There's a song to Varda that calls her "Snow-white" - sung by Gildor's Elves in "Three is Company". Maybe she would like to get more involved in the daily doings of Middle-earth? :Merisu:

[Inziladun]

At least someone was brave enough to bring this wonderful world alive for us; it's definitely not easy. Sure, they could be a bit more correct with certain scenes, but the thing that counts is that at least WE know what really happened.

Personally, I can do without PJ, or anyone else bringing Tolkien's work "alive". It isn't necessary.

If they're looking for a fairy-tale angle though, why does it have to be a well-known English-based one? I vote for some tie-in to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otes%C3%A1nek) tale. Then the Battle of Five Armies can be won by a living tree-stump baby eating the Orcs. Here's a thought: that could replace Beorn! :D

[Galadriel55]

A role as small as that (no matter the importance of the person) can be given away to another character.

I understand that it would be very confusing for someone to watch a movie where there are dozens of different characters and all have different importat but small roles. However, PJ is such a hypocrite - he takes away roles from LOTR, but adds them to TH!:mad:

[Bêthberry]

Maybe Glosfaen/Losfain.... any thoughts?

Well, according to the Ardalambion, lossë or lossëa means 'fallen snow' or 'snow white', so we have something to work on.


There's a song to Varda that calls her "Snow-white" - sung by Gildor's Elves in "Three is Company". Maybe she would like to get more involved in the daily doings of Middle-earth?

But can she cook, Esty? :D


What about a WitchKing that eats Hobbits who have nibbled on his gingerbread barrow? Or perhaps a wooden Legolas yearning to be a real boy?

Ohhh, I see great potential for the true story of the film script in our newly revamped RPG fora. Seriously. Could we best PJ (and his script writers) at his game?


If they're looking for a fairy-tale angle though, why does it have to be a well-known English-based one? I vote for some tie-in to this tale. Then the Battle of Five Armies can be won by a living tree-stump baby eating the Orcs. Here's a thought: that could replace Beorn!

Oh, to be canonical it would have to be a Brothers Grimm tale. :D

[Elfchick7]

Bard the Bowman is too much of a main character to give his role away to someone else (IE Glorfindel's role was given to Arwen in the movies, in which PJ did that simply for the romance of Arwen and Aragorn*).



What is the official fate of dear Bard? Anyone know? Onering.net (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/the-hobbit/characters/bard/) Lists him as "not yet cast" Have any of y'all heard the official word on that?

[Galadriel55]

What is the official fate of dear Bard? Anyone know? Onering.net (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/the-hobbit/characters/bard/) Lists him as "not yet cast" Have any of y'all heard the official word on that?

Who needs Bard when you have Legolas? :rolleyes:

[Mithalwen]

TO be fair Bard isn't actually needed til the second film. I wonder if they are dithering about this Itaril character - I haven't seen many people really positive about it even among the PJ acolytes. Also I think I saw Ronan had a lead role that might clash. Here's hoping.

[narfforc]

Edit: I'm uncertain, after re-reading my post, that the twin sons possibly wasn't even born at the time (though I think they may have been, the Hobbit began 55 -?- years before the Lord of the Rings and the Twin Sons were born in 130 TA)

The main events of The Lord of the Rings occured during the the years 3018/19 TA, so they would be some thousands of years old.

[Galadriel55]

I wonder if they are dithering about this Itaril character - I haven't seen many people really positive about it even among the PJ acolytes.

Well enough is enough, don't you think?

Also I think I saw Ronan had a lead role that might clash. Here's hoping.

Call me pesimist if you like, but if she won't be abe to do it, PJ will find someone else who will.

[Mithalwen]

Enough was enough for me a long time ago...

[Elfchick7]

Enough was enough for me a long time ago...

I was ready to say the same, but then I saw this (https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150223186041807&oid=141884481557&comments) and I'm afraid I'm about to be sucked back in...

[Galadriel]

Or perhaps a wooden Legolas yearning to be a real boy?

I think a wooden Gollum would be better in that case ;) But I loved the subtle ribbing you gave :p

[oddkins]

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/news/saoirse-ronans-hobbit-holiday-15151475.html

Saoirse Ronan has revealed she will not be playing woodland elf Itaril in The Hobbit.
The Hanna star had been in talks to star in The Lord Of The Rings prequel, directed by Peter Jackson, who she worked with on The Lovely Bones, but has now signed up to star in The Host.

That's probably the best news I've heard all week - although of course it doesn't mean Jackson has dropped the idea of inrtroducing this Itaril character...:(

[Inziladun]

That's probably the best news I've heard all week - although of course it doesn't mean Jackson has dropped the idea of inrtroducing this Itaril character...:(

Shame it isn't April 1st, or I'd have to make up a story about Scarlett Johansson replacing her. ;)

[Mithalwen]

At least you can imaging Scarlett as a shield maiden. She could kick donkeys... But I am ecstatic it won't be her at least and I am hopeful they might scrub the idea like they did with Arwen Warrior Princess.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

I've tried my level best to lampoon (in prose and verse) what I consider a truly terrible idea for a Middle Earth character: namely, the elf-chick/security-guard, Itaril. Still, even a complete cynic like me can't always conceive of just how bad ideas for movies have become. It seems, fellow Crimestoppers, that the actress Saoirse Ronan "stars" in a just released film called "Hanna," where -- I kid you, not -- the plot proceeds as follows:

"Storyline

Hanna (Ronan) is a teenage girl. Uniquely, she has the strength, the stamina, and the smarts of a soldier; these come from being raised by her father (Bana), an ex-CIA man, in the wilds of Finland. Living a life unlike any other teenager, her upbringing and training have been one and the same, all geared to making her the perfect assassin. The turning point in her adolescence is a sharp one; sent into the world by her father on a mission, Hanna journeys stealthily across Europe while eluding agents dispatched after her by a ruthless intelligence operative with secrets of her own (Ms. Blanchett). As she nears her ultimate target, Hanna faces startling revelations about her existence and unexpected questions about her humanity."

I have no idea what this can possibly mean, in regard to The Hobbit, but this Hanna character sounds awfully close to the original casting-call description for Peter Jackson's idea of a butt-kicking elf-babe love-interest like Itaril. Perhaps Jackson and Company have seen an advance screening of this movie, Hanna, and barely escaped choking to death while laughing and vomiting at the same time. Perhaps this near-death experience convinced them that they'd better rethink the whole stupid idea -- possibly just forget all about it. Or, they could have decided that the part would have worked out better if only another "more convincing" actress had done it, in which case something really awful could still lie ahead for us gullible viewers a year-and-a-half in the future.

I don't know. I feel sick. I'll have to give this a little more thought. After all, I haven't had my prescribed dose of masochism for the day.

[Galadriel]

Perhaps Jackson and Company have seen an advance screening of this movie, Hanna, and barely escaped choking to death while laughing and vomiting at the same time. Perhaps this near-death experience convinced them that they'd better rethink the whole stupid idea -- possibly just forget all about it. Or, they could have decided that the part would have worked out better if only another "more convincing" actress had done it, in which case something really awful could still lie ahead for us gullible viewers a year-and-a-half in the future.

Or perhaps they merely (FINALLY) realised that they were butchering Tolkien's works enough, and that having Weaving cast as Elrond, making Gimli into a comic relief character, and creating Valinor into some universal heaven already did enough damage in the trilogy.

I think I'm being too optimistic.

[Galadriel55]

I think I'm being too optimistic.

I think so too. ;)

[Mithalwen]

Or perhaps they merely (FINALLY) realised that they were butchering Tolkien's works enough, and that having Weaving cast as Elrond, making Gimli into a comic relief character, and creating Valinor into some universal heaven already did enough damage in the trilogy.

I think I'm being too optimistic.

Hugo was fine as Elrond. It isn't his fault they turned Elrond into a creepy dad.

[Thinlómien]

MisfortuneTeller - uh oh, I totally cracked up at this: "Uniquely, she has the strength, the stamina, and the smarts of a soldier; these come from being raised by her father (Bana), an ex-CIA man, in the wilds of Finland." :D :D Maybe I have to see it! (For your information, I happen to be from the said country.)

I hope they handle the "have to have a major female character" syndrome somewhow smartly. You can kill me for saying this, but having Bard/Barde the Queen of Dale rise to lead her people, co-operate with the King of Elves (and even having a love affair with him or his son for all I care!) and shoot Smaug would please me better than introducing some new totally random character to take up screen time.

[Kuruharan]

I hope they handle the "have to have a major female character" syndrome somewhow smartly.

This is an oxymoron.

You can kill me for saying this, but having Bard/Barde the Queen of Dale rise to lead her people, co-operate with the King of Elves (and even having a love affair with him or his son for all I care!) and shoot Smaug would please me better than introducing some new totally random character to take up screen time.

Errggg...why not turn Fili and Kili into hot dwarf twin sisters? ;) :D

[Galadriel55]

Errggg...why not turn Fili and Kili into hot dwarf twin sisters?

Their noses are too big. ;) But what about a Ms. Thorin? Thora, I daresay?

[Kuruharan]

Kilee's and Filee's noses are diminutive compared to hers...

[Nerwen]

Hanna (Ronan) is a teenage girl. Uniquely, she has the strength, the stamina, and the smarts of a soldier; these come from being raised by her father (Bana), an ex-CIA man, in the wilds of Finland. Living a life unlike any other teenager, her upbringing and training have been one and the same, all geared to making her the perfect assassin. The turning point in her adolescence is a sharp one; sent into the world by her father on a mission, Hanna journeys stealthily across Europe while eluding agents dispatched after her by a ruthless intelligence operative with secrets of her own (Ms. Blanchett). As she nears her ultimate target, Hanna faces startling revelations about her existence and unexpected questions about her humanity."

I have no idea what this can possibly mean, in regard to The Hobbit, but this Hanna character sounds awfully close to the original casting-call description for Peter Jackson's idea of a butt-kicking elf-babe love-interest like Itaril.
Perhaps the "startling revelation" is the discovery she's really an Elf?

I went and googled this, and it brings up a link to a "Guardian" review that begins thus: "It opens like The Tempest, with a rogue secret agent (Eric Bana) self-exiled to the Arctic waste of northern Finland with his innocent daughter, Hanna..."

Ah, yes. Just like "The Tempest".;)

[Thinlómien]

Kilee's and Filee's noses are diminutive compared to hers...You are aware that "filee" would be the Finnish spelling of "fillet", aren't you? ;)

[Galadriel55]

Kilee's and Filee's noses are diminutive compared to hers...

But remember, that fillet Kilee's nose was remarkably big - so much that they deserved a special mention in TH, unlike Thora's nosie... By "they" meaning the noses, not fillets and killets and whatever.

:D ;) :p

[Kuruharan]

You are aware that "filee" would be the Finnish spelling of "fillet", aren't you? ;)

No, actually. ;)

But remember, that fillet Kilee's nose was remarkably big - so much that they deserved a special mention in TH, unlike Thora's nosie... By "they" meaning the noses, not fillets and killets and whatever.

Dwarf noses grow with age and Thoria was as old as the hills. It stood to reason that her schnoz was humongous without having to stoop to the vulgarity of actually mentioning it.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Trying to remain focused on the subject of this thread -- namely, the horrifying possibility of a teenage elf-babe ninja assassin love interest in The Hobbit -- I recommend that all references to Dwarves henceforth relate in some way to the nubile female character in question. For example, one could address this topic from the point of view Snow White, a fairy tale metaphor exploited to fine comic effect in the movie Shrek, wherein the magic mirror on the wall intones:

"Just because she lives with seven other men doesn't make her easy."

Pursuing this polyandry paradigm, if Gimli the Dwarf could fall irretrievably in love with Lady Galadriel, and if seven Dwarves could cohabit with the comatose Snow White -- which suggests necrophilia as an additional operative psychology -- then why couldn't thirteen Dwarves -- including Gimli's father -- do the same in regard to a thousand-year-old elf teenager with an insatiable appetite for stocky bearded miners about to become billionaires once they figure out how to regain their lost treasure from a giant worm with really bad breath? I mean, thirteen simultaneous palimony lawsuits ought to net the amoral calculating elf-chick enough riches to buy Lord Thranduil and make him her security guard. The mind boggles at the possibilities. Like:

"Itaril and the Thirteen Dwarves"

They say that she's not easy.
They say that she is hard.
They say she likes to grapple
And wrestle in the yard.

They say she grew up fighting,
Unlike the other girls.
About her every movement,
They say that mayhem swirls.

A tomboy in the tree house,
She hangs out with the guys
Who mostly fight for money
And everything it buys.

She hasn't any scruples,
Or so we hear it said.
She'll do it for a dollar
If that gets her ahead.

Her services she'll contract
To elves or dwarves or men.
For her, there's no distinction.
Not whom. Not where. Not when.

She lusted after Filli.
She had the hots for Gloin.
The merest thought of Bombur
Caused dampness in the groin.

And so she'll fit quite nicely
Into the scripted part:
Both innocent and deadly;
The ersatz maiden tart.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Oh, for crying out loud! Peter Jackson and Company just had to do it! I mean, just when I thought we had driven a wooden stake through undead heart of this ludicrous elf-chick-in-The-Hobbit idea, that awful, queasy feeling in the pit of the stomach returns:

"... the biggest news is LOST star Evangeline Lilly will be Tauriel. PJ describes Tauriel as a Woodland Elf, ‘Her name means ‘daughter of Mirkwood’ and, beyond that, we must leave you guessing! (No, there is no romantic connection to Legolas.)‘ "

Just for starters, the calendar entry in Appendix B of The Lord of the Rings for the year 1050 states:

"About this time a shadow falls on Greenwood, and men begin to call it Mirkwood"

So I must inquire why any elf of Greenwood Forest would have a name derived from what men only began to call the same forest after it became infected by the "evil power" that had "made a stronghold at Dol Guldur." I mean, wouldn't a real (and really old) elf have a name like "Daughter of Greenwood" and not something that -- etymologically -- sounds more like "Daughter of the Necromancer" or "Daughter of Sauron"? Wouldn't all of the other elves just call her "Mirky" for short, because of the shadow that seems to follow her everywhere she goes?

Come to think of it, if this newly-relabeled Itaril (I mean "Tauriel") has a name derived from what men called the forest after it became evil, then wouldn't that make the newly-relabeled elf-chick less than 1050 years old (assuming that elves get their names at birth) and a mere child among that immortal race? Just think about this for a minute -- and it shouldn't take much longer than that -- and you can see the sloppy thinking and disregard for Tolkien's created world that went into this bogus "name."

Furthermore, putting purely linguistic considerations aside (which Professor Tolkien would never have done), the forcible injecting of an unnecessary elf-chick into an adolescent English schoolboy story like The Hobbit sounds as heretical as letting Vicky Vale into the Bat Cave or Lois Lane into the Fortress of Solitude. Some things you just don't do without undermining the entire foundation of the genre.

The whole idea sounds stupid, and the stupid new name for "stupid" -- i.e., "idiotic" -- sounds just as dumb. A pseudonym by any other misnomer would stlll stink as badly.

[Inziladun]

So I must inquire why any elf of Greenwood Forest would have a name derived from what men only began to call the same forest after it became infected by the "evil power" that had "made a stronghold at Dol Guldur." I mean, wouldn't a real (and really old) elf have a name like "Daughter of Greenwood" and not something that -- etymologically -- sounds more like "Daughter of the Necromancer" or "Daughter of Sauron"?

That's a valid point, but you don't really expect small details like that to get in the way of the Powers That Be, do you?

Furthermore, putting purely linguistic considerations aside (which Professor Tolkien would never have done), the forcible injecting of an unnecessary elf-chick into an adolescent English schoolboy story like The Hobbit sounds as heretical as letting Vicky Vale into the Bat Cave or Lois Lane into the Fortress of Solitude. Some things you just don't do without undermining the entire foundation of the genre.

Like having Faramir do in the Two Towers movie the opposite of what he did in the book? :rolleyes:

[Galin]

Tauriel would mean 'forest-daughter', not really green or mirk.

Not to defend such a possible addition...

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Tauriel would mean 'forest-daughter', not really green or mirk.

Not to defend such a possible addition...

Linguistic point taken. Too bad Peter Jackson and company couldn't have considered that. Something about "Mirk" -- or "murk" -- seems completely un-elvish, to say the least. Legolas Greenleaf, on the other hand, seems like an appropriate elf name, not that I especially want to see any more slashing and hacking and stabbing and shooting by You-Know-Him, any more than I want to see such mindless crap from You-Know-Her, either.

Of Pseudonyms for Misnomers

They tried to name her "Itaril"
But when that wouldn't stick,
They changed her name to something that
They thought would do the trick:
A pseudonym called "Tauriel"
Which sounded just as sick

They found an actress for a part
That Tolkien never wrote
In hopes that elf-chick T-and-A
Would cause fans to emote
And blindly purchase products
That a brain would scarcely note

[Inziladun]

Pfft. They might as well just call her Arwen. The motives for greatly exaggerating her part in LOTR and making up a female elf character for The Hobbit would appear to be the same.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

... you don't really expect small details like that to get in the way of the Powers That Be, do you?

To paraphrase Inspector Clouseau: "I expect nothing [good] and I expect everything [bad]." Therefore, I occasionally find life a pleasant surprise. Optimists, on the other hand, have little to look forward to but perpetual disappointment.

Like having Faramir do in the Two Towers movie the opposite of what he did in the book? :rolleyes:

Regarding Faramir's behavior towards the Ring and the Ring-bearer: the movie did deviate markedly from the book -- pretty much to drag out the Ring-bearer story line so as to better inter-cut it with the Helm's Deep and Isengard thread endings. Otherwise, the book's consolation-prize pairing of Faramir and Lady Eowyn does get a brief nod in the film at the King Aragorn coronation. Regardless, none of this Faramir meddling -- and much else besides -- can compensate for losing The Scouring of the Shire and the proper demise of Saruman at the hands of the Hobbits whom he victimized. The inflated romance between Aragorn and Arwen -- which Tolkien relegated to the Appendices -- adds nothing to compensate for this loss in the films. And I have every suspicion that this whole-cloth elf-chick invention of Peter Jackson's will do equally nothing but detract from the story of the hobbit Bilbo Baggins, ostensibly the [anti-] hero of these films.

If nothing else, though, I now know when to get up and take a bladder break during the films.

[Galadriel55]

I don't care what they call her: she remains the same nauseatingly-obnoxious detestable story-ruining -...you-name-it...- extra useless character that has no business in the real TH.

[LadyBrooke]

I think PJ is prejudiced against elves, and wants to make everyone else hate them too. :p That's the only explanation for all of this, unless he believes that people are so shallow that women only go to movies with strong female characters (I've never understood this idea...) and that guys have to be tempted by hot female actors to go see a movie. :mad:

Also, I'm more scared now then I was when I thought Itaril/Tauriel was Legolas's love interest...if she isn't his love interest, then she's likely someone else's. Which quite frankly scares me. If she ends up being Thranduil/Bilbo/Bard's love interest, I'm taking a knife to the screen. Same if she ends up being the one to slay Smaug/sneak the dwarves out of the dungeons/rescue them from the goblins.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

It seems clear to me that this re-branded demographic loss-leader of a "character" suffers from Popeye's Existential Conundrum:

"If I'm not me, who am I? And if I'm somebody else, then why do I look like me?"

Recruiting this actress from the cast of the TV-movie "Lost" does seem rather appropriate, though, if one has a taste for unintended irony.

[Mithalwen]

Also, I'm more scared now then I was when I thought Itaril/Tauriel was Legolas's love interest...if she isn't his love interest, then she's likely someone else's. Which quite frankly scares me. If she ends up being Thranduil/Bilbo/Bard's love interest, I'm taking a knife to the screen. Same if she ends up being the one to slay Smaug/sneak the dwarves out of the dungeons/rescue them from the goblins.

The only comfort is that Bard is now cast - so maybe that is significant that maybe Itaril was going to take Bard's role but this creature isn't? However I note that Galion and the Gaoler haven't been which is concerning.

When I heard the new name I thought of the geometrical shape a toros (like a ring doughnut) . Is maybe not inappropriate - a shape without proper substance and a heart and torus being Latin for cushion - I mean this is part of the padding needed to turn a short book into two long films. KERching!!!

[Morthoron]

Tauriel? Tauriel!
No elven name can hide the smell.
That sulfur stench from fan-fic wells
Up from Jackson's scripting Hell.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Well, maybe I shouldn't see the movies! What the?!

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Well, maybe I shouldn't see the movies!

You may have a valid reason for staying home with a good book, given the truly depressing speculation currently taking place at the OneRing site:

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2011/06/20/45330-just-who-is-tauriel-let-the-speculation-begin/#more-45330

"Just who is Tauriel?" Short answer: "Nobody."

I'd like to see Bilbo Baggins and Smeagol/Gollum doing "Riddles in the Dark." That will no doubt happen. Bilbo and Smaug will also have their little verbal duel over a pile of looted treasure. Bilbo and Thorin will fall out and reconcile over the Arkenstone. Perhaps Christopher Lee will get sufficient screen time to show the slow-motion corruption of Saruman the White. I'd like to see that on the big screen. But having to endure this needless elf-chick thing when so many other tales need telling, well, that I resent -- bitterly.

[Mithalwen]

I suppose at best she might be one of the raft elves unnamed in the book. But every bog name they get for small? roles just seems to say they have no confidence in the screen play on it's own merits and htey hope we will be too busy star spotting.

[LadyBrooke]

Perhaps Christopher Lee will get sufficient screen time to show the slow-motion corruption of Saruman the White. I'd like to see that on the big screen.

Christopehr Lee is the one thing making me go see this movie after all the new Tauriel stuff - if he get cut, I am 99% positive that I am not going to see this movie.

[Inziladun]

I suppose at best she might be one of the raft elves unnamed in the book. But every bog name they get for small? roles just seems to say they have no confidence in the screen play on it's own merits and htey hope we will be too busy star spotting.

Really! What's the point of doing book-to-movie adaptations if they're just going to monkey around with it for the sake of making the story "cinematic"? What's the need for creating characters like Lurtz and Tauriel? What's the need for adding new scenes or characters for "drama" or "extra tension"? I see today's movie makers as having a deal of contempt for the viewer, who isn't advanced enough to appreciate movies unless there are explosions, odious comic-relief, and high-visibility romantic subplots. I know there's the rare book that translates fairly well to the screen (Richard Matheson's Hell House and the Harry Potter series come to mind), but to me Tolkien's work just isn't suitable for movie treatment.

[Galadriel55]

I know there's the rare book that translates fairly well to the screen (Richard Matheson's Hell House and the Harry Potter series come to mind), but to me Tolkien's work just isn't suitable for movie treatment.

Some books just aren't meant to be movies. They weren't made to become movies. When it comes to those, it's better not to make any movie at all than to do what PJ&others are doing with TH (and what has been done with LOTR).

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Or maybe Tauriel is leader of a feminist Amazon band of
elves who roam through Mirkwood righting wrongs who
is wounded in a skirmish before the Battle of Five Armies
but is awakened by her horse and then reappears to the
relief of her uncle Thranduil and cousin Legolas. Hmmm?

Or her band of female elves help Gandalf (attacked by orcs)
and rides with him to the relief of the good guys in the
Battle of Five Armies.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Some books just aren't meant to be movies. They weren't made to become movies. When it comes to those, it's better not to make any movie at all than to do what PJ&others are doing with TH (and what has been done with LOTR).

On the contrary, The Hobbit follows the standard formula of the monomyth -- There and Back Again -- as described by Joseph Campbell in The Hero with a Thousand Faces:

[No matter what tale we hear told, in no matter what language or culture] “... it will be always the one, shape-shifting yet marvelously constant story that we find, together with a challengingly persistent suggestion of more remaining to be experienced than will ever be known or told.”

“The standard path of the mythological adventure of the hero is a magnification of the formula represented in the rites of passage: separation—initiation—return: which might be named the nuclear unit of the monomyth.

A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.”

If you can't make a movie out of that timeless tale, then you can't make a movie out of anything. No. The issue doesn't involve making a movie out of the standard heroic adventure -- countless film-makers have done that and will continue doing that -- but rather, making the movie well. The danger here lies in trying to blow up the central narrative of Bilbo Baggins' adventure into a sprawling amalgamation of sub-plots and marginal characters designed specifically to lure various consumer-demographics into the theater (and nearby toy stores) on the "tent-pole" presumption that each age-group and gender tribe will want to see -- and consume products related to -- certain celebrities famous for their fame.

In the case of The Hobbit, trying to make two mega-movies out of material properly suitable for only one, at best, can do little but bloat the essential story beyond recognition. In trying to adapt The Lord of the Rings to film, Peter Jackson had too much material for only three movies -- an embarrassment of riches. In trying to adapt The Hobbit, he has barely enough material for one -- and should pridefully protect such priceless poverty.

[Galadriel55]

Point taken, but I still think that some books should be left as books. Harry Potter can (and did) make a relatively good movie that did not stray too much from the original because what was in the book suited what people want to be in a movie. It did not lose/change its overal "spirit". On the other hand, Narnia was changed quite a bit, because otherwise it wouldn't make a good movie. I can't speak about the plot changes, because I haven't read it in ages and hardly remember what happened, but I can say for sure that the mood, or "spirit" of it changed. If the books were a simple, kind, straight-forward-ish story for both children and adults, the movies are definitely not for small children, and they have a HP-esque mood.

What has befallen Narnia is befalling TH. It is a work for children - although adults also enjoy it, but on a different level - that is made into an overcomplicated intrigue tangle. Children will not (most likely, considering the news that we hear) be able to get the message of the book through the movie. It's a question if they'll be able to undertand it. TH lost it's "spirit".

In trying to adapt The Lord of the Rings to film, Peter Jackson had too much material for only three movies -- an embarrassment of riches. In trying to adapt The Hobbit, he has barely enough material for one -- and should pridefully protect such priceless poverty.

True. However, there was enough space in the 3 LOTR movies to have Aragorn almost killed by the wargs and Arwen resurrecting him. There was enough space for the mad-idiot-Elrond. And for the Boromir-like Faramir dragging Frodo to Osgiliath, and for Denethor the Insane being insane. That's not to mention a gazilion other changes PJ didn't have to make.

When I said that TH and the trilogy are suffering the same fate, I meant that there's hardly anything left from what Tolkien wrote it to be.

Every book has to be tweaked a little bit before it becomes a movie - usually because there's too many things in too short a time, and some have to be cut out. I can understand that, and that's why I don't hold any grudge against the LOTR movies for not having anything from Crickhollow till the Downs. But one thing is tweaking, and another is using the athor's names to shape a totally different creation.


I'm sorry about the rant. :o


EDIT: I was typing that late at night, so just to add my final point - when what is in a book somewhat fits what the audience expects to be in a movie, then the movie is good. But when it doesn't - that's when the movie either doesn't work out properly or it isn't really about the book.

[Bêthberry]

Every book has to be tweaked a little bit before it becomes a movie - usually because there's too many things in too short a time, and some have to be cut out. I can understand that, and that's why I don't hold any grudge against the LOTR movies for not having anything from Crickhollow till the Downs. But one thing is tweaking, and another is using the athor's names to shape a totally different creation.


Oh, but I think the omissions, given the additions, suggest very much what PJ is unable to appreciate in Tolkien. I don't think he respected the elements of Fairie enough--hence ignoring the Bombadils and the Barrow Downs--and too much sought after the action flick.

As with any artist, he has the right to his interpretation, but he can't go calling it Tolkien.

[Morthoron]

Oh, but I think the omissions, given the additions, suggest very much what PJ is unable to appreciate in Tolkien. I don't think he respected the elements of Fairie enough--hence ignoring the Bombadils and the Barrow Downs--and too much sought after the action flick.

As with any artist, he has the right to his interpretation, but he can't go calling it Tolkien.

Personally, I would have much preferred the inclusion of the sons of Elrond and the Rangers of the North, instead of that whole army of Lorien walking a hundred miles through enemy-occupied territory to Helms Deep and then suddenly disappearing by the end of the battle. What, every last one of them got killed? So much for the vaunted skill of the Elves. ;)

I still say, when PJ stuck with the original plot, the movie was magical. Even when dialogue of one character in the book was stated by another character in the movie, it was moving. But everytime PJ strayed away with his fancies, the sequences were farcical. Think about it:

1. Arwen summoning the river to drown the Nazgul (and then looking utterly surprised when it happened).

2. Elrond whining about Arwen dying. Elrond whinig about the list of allies growing thin. Elrond whining in general.

4. Elrond riding several hundred miles to deliver a sword.

5. The warg attack, Aragorn falling off a cliff and then frenching his horse in a torrid beach scene reminiscent of Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr in From Here to Eternity.

6. Faramir dragging the Hobbits (and what was left of his character) to Osgiliath, just so Frodo could climb a tower to show the One Ring, the ultimate object of desire, to a flying Nazgul -- AND YET ALL THE NAZGUL AND THE ENTIRE ARMY OF MORDOR DIDN'T SURROUND THEM INSTANTANEOUSLY AND CRUSH THEM! No, the Nazgul simply flies away, Faramir has a change of heart and Sam gets to give a teary-eyed soliloquoy.

5. Nutty Denethor sets an olympic record in the mile run, while on fire.

6. Dull-witted Treebeard gets outwitted by clever Hobbits.

7. Frodo tells Sam to "Go home", even though he's a thousand miles from home, in Mordor, surrounded by thousands of Orcs. Some friend.

8. Green Scrubbing Bubbles not only destroyed Orcs, but gave the walls of Minas Tirith a streak-free shine. Look, I can see myself!

I could go on and on, but I've given myself a headache. I would prefer that such shenanigans not occur in The Hobbit, but I have given up hope that (Itaril) Peter Jackson will restrain (Tauriel) himself from (Orlando Bloom) outlandish (the White Council) scripting. Bah.

[LadyBrooke]

I still say, when PJ stuck with the original plot, the movie was magical. Even when dialogue of one character in the book was stated by another character in the movie, it was moving. But everytime PJ strayed away with his fancies, the sequences were farcical. Think about it:

I don't know...I think PJ just plain didn't want to do the elves right. I'm just hoping that Golden Haired Thranduil doesn't end up dish water blonde (Hi Celeborn the gray) or with a receding hairline. Of course, that would make special snowflake Tauriel look so much better next to that ugly old elf....

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

From a related comment in another thread:

And another Mary-Sue-iel...

... strong female roles are thin on Middle Earth in Tolkien's work ... :rolleyes:

Which begs the question: So why introduce them?

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

... I think PJ just plain didn't want to do the elves right...

The elves? Look what short shrift he gave the hobbits! I mean, the wounded Frodo didn't get to ride Glorfindel's great white horse to safety at the Ford of Bruinen. The brunette elf chick Arwen got to do that. Merry didn't get his big dramatic scene with Théoden on the Pelennor Fields, sending the dying King off to drink mead with his ancestors in Valhala. The Rohan blonde chick, Éowyn, got that big moment. And of course, all the hobbits lost out when they didn't get to scour the Shire of evil men, Saruman, and Wormtongue. Talk about getting royally screwed so that some barely mentioned Appendix girls could get in more implausible, forced screen time swapping spit with -- or simply drooling over -- Aragorn. The elves got off lucky by comparison.

Now that Peter Jackson has to make a movie ostensibly about one particular hobbit -- and a confirmed bachelor at that -- he invents yet another elf-chick character to waste precious screen time that the schizoid Smeagol-Gollum could easily employ to memorable effect. If any character deserves an expanded role in these films, then the pathetic/treacherous Smeagol-Gollum does. I mean, face it, the elves have pretty much given up on Middle-earth. They mostly just want to leave. So I say, let them. At any rate, Bilbo Baggins and Smeagool-Gollum have more to do with the fate of Middle-earth than any elf-chick afterthought possibly could. These films should make that truth abundantly clear.

Of course, that would make special snowflake Tauriel look so much better next to that ugly old elf....

I have no confidence that the special snowflake Tauriel will look anything but instantly risible next to just about anyone: elf, dwarf, man, or hobbit -- ugly or otherwise.

[LadyBrooke]

The elves? Look what short shrift he gave the hobbits! I mean, the wounded Frodo didn't get to ride Glorfindel's great white horse to safety at the Ford of Bruinen. The brunette elf chick Arwen got to do that. Merry didn't get his big dramatic scene with Théoden on the Pelennor Fields, sending the dying King off to drink mead with his ancestors in Valhala. The Rohan blonde chick, Éowyn, got that big moment. And of course, all the hobbits lost out when they didn't get to scour the Shire of evil men, Saruman, and Wormtongue. Talk about getting royally screwed so that some barely mentioned Appendix girls could get in more implausible, forced screen time swapping spit with -- or simply drooling over -- Aragorn. The elves got off lucky by comparison.

Well by elves, I was mainly referring to the male elves...to be frank, I tend to forget Arwen was even there. Out of the male elves, Elrond now has a receding hairline, anger management issues, and a hatred of men. Celeborn has grey hair and a speech impediment, Haldir and co are apparently such bad soldiers that every single one dies at Helm's deep, Legolas apparently has to state the obvious (A Diversion! Orcs! A Chair!*) every single time, and half the unnamed elves, you can't even tell their gender.....

Now that Peter Jackson has to make a movie ostensibly about one particular hobbit -- and a confirmed bachelor at that -- he invents yet another elf-chick character to waste precious screen time that the schizoid Smeagol-Gollum could easily employ to memorable effect.
Ahh...but then PJ wouldn't have his own characters, and he'd just be *gasp* following what the books says. Everybody knows that audiences these days can't watch movies that don't have Action! Hot Women! Dumb Jokes! :rolleyes:

If any character deserves an expanded role in these films, then the pathetic/treacherous Smeagol-Gollum does. I mean, face it, the elves have pretty much given up on Middle-earth. They mostly just want to leave. So I say, let them. At any rate, Bilbo Baggins and Smeagool-Gollum have more to do with the fate of Middle-earth than any elf-chick afterthought possibly could. These films should make that truth abundantly clear.
Not all the elves do...Celeborn and Thranduil both stay past the end of the War of the Ring, which is a big reason that I like them better then Elrond or Galadriel...they seem so much more alive. It's also one of the reasons I dislike this Tauriel character so much - he already has wonderful elves in Galion and Thranduil for Mirkwood, he doesn't need another one.

I have no confidence that the special snowflake Tauriel will look anything but instantly risible next to just about anyone: elf, dwarf, man, or hobbit -- ugly or otherwise.
That was sarcasm on my part...note the special snowflake description. I only call people that when I'm implying that they're really only special because mommy (or in this case, PJ) thinks they're oh so special. PJ, in my opinion, has messed up so badly that he's no longer deserving of the term adapter - he's no better then a glorified fanfic author.

*One of these might be an invention on my part, however, everybody knows Legolas was thinking it at some point.

[Galadriel55]

I think that TMT has a good point about Gollum. That's one interesting character, with plenty ways to develop it more (although in LOTR PJ simply murdered it! :mad:). I think that he should get more attention than some Itaril-Tauriel blasphemy. Unless it's going to be an expanded version of that sequence where he decays alive as he turns into that colourless skeleton...

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

... note the special snowflake description. I only call people that when I'm implying that they're really only special because mommy (or in this case, PJ) thinks they're oh so special.

I like that "special snowflake" characterization. I had gotten stuck trying to fill out the last line of a verse stanza with something that had to rhyme with "cast" or "passed," etc. I really wanted to use "aghast" but I couldn't make it fit following the comic-book references in line 5. Your mention of a snowflake at least gave me something to work with. Still not what I wanted to get across, but at least I've got something passable for the present. Thanks again for the helpful suggestion.


Murkwood Mary Sue's come back
Rebranded and recast.
First "Itaril" imploded, now
It’s "Tauriel" who’s passed
From Vicky Vale to Lois Lane:
A snowflake melting fast.

I give the elves credit for trying to write poetry, Tolkien's own favored means of literary expression. However, since I don't speak, read, or write Elvish dialects, I have to go with Bilbo Baggins as the hobbit Homer of Middle-earth. Naturally, none of this versification stuff has a chance in hell of making it into a Peter Jackson hack-and-slash action extravaganza. Now, if instead of Murkwood Mary Sue disemboweling orcs, wargs, and giant spiders, this Tauriel turned into an elegant, elvish Edna St. Vincent Millay, saying of the world's cruelty and injustice:

I know.
But I do not approve.
And I am not resigned.

... then I could appreciate such truly feminine strength and character. Of course, Galadriel would deliver such lines with more authority than Murkwood Mary Sue, just returned from her morning kung-fu choreography training, but if this story absolutely has to have something quintessentially elvish going on in King Thranduil's household while Bilbo skulks about, unseen, looking for a way to free his dwarf companions, then I would not mind witnessing a timelessly young elvish wordsmith audibly composing trenchant verse in King Thranduil's library. I think an invisible Bilbo would find that experience both enchanting and edifying, as well.

And then I woke up ...

[LadyBrooke]

I like that "special snowflake" characterization. I had gotten stuck trying to fill out the last line of a verse stanza with something that had to rhyme with "cast" or "passed," etc. I really wanted to use "aghast" but I couldn't make it fit following the comic-book references in line 5. Your mention of a snowflake at least gave me something to work with. Still not what I wanted to get across, but at least I've got something passable for the present. Thanks again for the helpful suggestion.
You're welcome! :D I really like your poems. I'd try one, but in my family, my sister got all the poetry skills, and I got the essay writing skills...But yours are wonderful.

Naturally, none of this versification stuff has a chance in hell of making it into a Peter Jackson hack-and-slash action extravaganza. Now, if instead of Murkwood Mary Sue disemboweling orcs, wargs, and giant spiders, this Tauriel turned into an elegant, elvish Edna St. Vincent Millay, saying of the world's cruelty and injustice:

I know.
But I do not approve.
And I am not resigned.

... then I could appreciate such truly feminine strength and character. Of course, Galadriel would deliver such lines with more authority than Murkwood Mary Sue, just returned from her morning kung-fu choreography training, but if this story absolutely has to have something quintessentially elvish going on in King Thranduil's household while Bilbo skulks about, unseen, looking for a way to free his dwarf companions, then I would not mind witnessing a timelessly young elvish wordsmith audibly composing trenchant verse in King Thranduil's library. I think an invisible Bilbo would find that experience both enchanting and edifying, as well.
I don't think I'd mind this character, if she was what you are describing - a minor background character, inserted to set the mood in Thranduil's caverns, acting in an elvish fashion. Unfortunately, she's some mary sue of a modern woman, poorly disguised as an elf. *sigh* I'm just hoping that she isn't inserted onto the White Council or anything - one woman on the Council - Galadriel, not Tauriel. Also, I'm wondering who all they're going to place onto the Council - Galadriel, Saruman, Radagast, Gandalf, and Elrond of course. But what about Celeborn or Cirdan, neither of who, as far as I am aware, have been cast. If Tauriel gets on it, and neither of them do....:mad: Must remember to wear pointy high heels to the movie that day....:p

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Originally Posted by Rumil in another thread:

... strong female roles are thin on Middle Earth in Tolkien's work ...

Granted, but I think that certain characteristics of hobbits: namely, their shyness, love of growing plants, and relatively small stature, for example, substitute in many cases for appearance and behavior that men typically associate with women. I wouldn't go so far as to call hobbits "effeminate" by nature, but they do tend to live and act in ways antithetical to the adolescent, swaggering machismo that animates so much of infantile male mythology. Therefore, by creating morally "strong" hobbit characters like Bilbo and Frodo Baggins, Tolkien essentially provided what strong, mature women would have supplied, but without the mythological penalty of putting girls into a boy's fantasy adventure.

I say these things because I once wanted to pay tribute to a strong woman who I consider one of my country's real heroes: a mother who had lost her son in Iraq who subsequently confronted the President of the United States from a position of enormous relative powerlessness but far greater moral authority. For inspiration, my first thoughts turned to Shakespeare's Measure for Measure, where Isabella pleads with a judge for her condemned brother's life. Then I thought of Macbeth and Hamlet in reference to the unequal struggle with bloody power figures. Then I thought of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, specifically "Riddles in the Dark" and "The Shadow of the Past," respectively. Then this happened:

Metrics for Measure
(Dedicated to Cindy Sheehan)

The pricking of his thumbs begins to sting
As something wicked comes his way unsought:
The awful truth about the play as thing
Wherein the conscience of the prince is caught

Now Isabella camps outside his ranch
Her silent supplication real not fake
Her rude requests for justice make him blanch
Her simple power poised to grab and shake

Her time, down in a roadside ditch, she bides
With twenty*-hundred crosses witness mute
While safe within his bubble he resides
The gashes in the dead his lies confute

His thought no counsel credible informs
So on he stumbles, mouthing scripted rhyme
Upon the gibbet’s scaffold he performs
For his allotted fifteen minutes’ time

An angry ape with glassy essence clear
Before high heaven trotting out his trick
Afraid of nothing quite so much as fear
Which makes splenetic angels laugh till sick

Assured of his own ignorance he pressed
To have himself informed of what he knew
In little brief authority he dressed
So as to mask his nakedness from view

His counselor, the clown, roved here and there
Professing, like Rasputin, cures to know
For royal hemophilia laid bare
As turds that blossom on the frozen snow

But still the would-be great no greatness had
They thus could only mock the small who sobbed
Until disrobed, in disrepute unclad,
Their perfidy showed clear to those they’d robbed

But Gandalf once to Frodo Baggins said,
In telling him his uncle Bilbo’s tale,
That even small ones lost in fear and dread
Can turn the blast of fortune’s greatest gale

For Bilbo spared the vicious Gollum’s good
In pity of one long so lonely lost
And would not strike him even though he could
Which in the end saved all great evil’s cost

No doubt some live who maybe ought to die
And some that die deserve to live instead
But who shall make of his own life a lie
Who deals out death in judgment of the dead?

And as the wizard might have said at length
What Isabella did, a court to sway:
How excellent to have a giant’s strength
But tyrannous to use it in that way

For even very wise ones cannot see
The end to all the mischief that ensues
From feckless fights and their mad misery
As complex as a rainbow’s many hues

And as such smallish suitors might combine
Soliciting compassion as their cause
They plead for pity in a single line
That pelting petty officers might pause

For making thunder just to hear the noise
And lightning just to see the awe and shock
If overused by adolescent boys
Will look more like the chicken than the hawk

They like it well enough when first they think
That all will go exactly as they dream
But soon enough they shun the fetid stink
That clogs the nose and gags them till they scream

Those wise who hold great power in reserve
And do not waste it in a foolish deed
Have moral power more which well will serve
When faced with future’s grave and greater need

Thus Isabella Baggins now implores
The one who can to pity those who serve
And bring them home from bloody foreign shores
To reap the future lives that they deserve

We only ask for metrics we can use
To measure what is often promised glib
By bureaucrats who went and lit the fuse
And now can only hedge, and stall, and fib

The prince from all his lies, has not escaped
Despite the chimps and baboons that he aped
Upon this dwarfish thief with soul misshaped
His title's giant robe hangs loosely draped

* Note: As of early 2008, the number of dead American soldiers in Iraq had reached 4,000 – or “forty hundred,” as the poetic meter would have us mark the doubling yet again of premature graves filled with more luckless victims of vainglorious venality.

Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller,” Copyright 2005, 2008, 2011

So, it appears that deep down in my own psyche, I associate strong women and hobbits, without the distracting violence and sexuality that attend more "modern" conceptions of "femininity" and "strength." Whether Tolkien intended that sort of subliminal association or not, I cannot say; but it seems to me that with the best qualities of hobbits to work with, Professor Tolkien did not require much in the way of overt female roles to communicate his major themes and issues.

Just a few thoughts and verse stanzas on the subject ...

[Nerwen]

I think some named Elven characters would be needed (yes, even in a hypothetical faithful version). I mean, Elves turn up quite a bit in the book, but are mostly referred to collectively : "they said this", and "they said that". That would probably not work in a film. So I've got no objection to PJ throwing in an Elf-maid named Tauriel– as long as she's a minor character, and not another version of "Itaril".

Here's hoping the change of name indicates a change of plan. Jackson has supposedly said she's not to be Leggy's love-interest, which reduces the Mary-Sue factor somewhat.

On the other hand, there's speculation she's going to be Bard's love-interest... :rolleyes:

Oh, and though in every reference to this new character on the net, she's "Tauriel, daughter of Mirkwood", the name doesn't, in fact, mean this at all. Wonder where that came from.

[Galin]

Oh, and though in every reference to this new character on the net, she's "Tauriel, daughter of Mirkwood", the name doesn't, in fact, mean this at all. Wonder where that came from.

It was taken off Jackson's facebook page but may be elsewhere too; and I think it's likey from someone on the Jackson team, a sort of simplification: as the name appears intended to mean 'daughter of the forest' -- and the particular forest in reference (so to speak) is popularly known as Mirkwood (or Taur-e-Ndaedelos 'forest of great fear').

Thus Jackson, or someone, 'simplifies' it in this way: 'daughter of Mirkwood'.

[Mithalwen]

I suppose that it is so luxiouriously cast that even Raft elves and the hunting/feasting elves areliable ot be"names" and I suppose there is no great harm if the spokes rafte elf were female however I have no faith itwill be jsut that.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

On the other hand, there's speculation she's going to be Bard's love-interest... :rolleyes:

At this point in the revolting development, I've begun to not care if "Murky" becomes romantically attracted to Smaug, or vice versa. Something along the lines of Fay Wray and King Kong, only the reptilian version.

[Morthoron]

At this point in the revolting development, I've begun to not care if "Murky" becomes romantically attracted to Smaug, or vice versa. Something along the lines of Fay Wray and King Kong, only the reptilian version.

Well, PJ did film an over-produced but ultimately mediocre version of King Kong. Perhaps he has run out of plot bunnies and had to borrow one from there.

[Galadriel]

What about this Tauriel chick? I heard she's affiliated with Thranduil and/or Legolas...

[narfforc]

The name Tauriel say to me The Lady of the Forest.....will she be Thranduil's wife?


Orome= Tauron= Lord of Forests/Forester.

Galadriel= The Lady of the Tree.


Any thoughts on this?

[Galadriel55]

Galadriel= The Lady of the Tree.

Galadh=tree. Galad=light. Riel=rig+el=garland+lady

Galadriel=Lady Crowned/Garlanded with Light.

Tauriel: taur=forset -iel=daughter Tauriel=Daughter of the Forest


Why the speculations about Elvish, though?

[Galin]

Well it's not the first time someone thought Galadriel's name was associated with trees...

'When Celeborn and Galadriel became the ruler of the Elves of Lórien (who were mainly in origin Silvan Elves and called themselves the Galadhrim) the name of Galadriel became associated with trees, an association that was aided by the name of her husband, which also appeared to contain a tree-word; so that outside Lórien among those whose memories of the ancient days and Galadriel's history had grown dim her name was often altered to Galadhriel. Not so in Lórien itself.' Unfinished Tales

:)

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Galadh=tree. Galad=light. Riel=rig+el=garland+lady

Galadriel=Lady Crowned/Garlanded with Light.

Tauriel: taur=forset -iel=daughter Tauriel=Daughter of the Forest


Why the speculations about Elvish, though?

J. R. R. Tolkien did not invent this pseudo-character Itaril/Tauriel. Peter Jackson did. And Peter Jackson says that the name means "Daughter of Mirkwood," referring to the name that men gave to Greenwood Forest after the Necromancer (i.e., Sauron) began spreading his evil shadow over the place in 1050 of the Third Age. Peter Jackson, a man (of sorts) has created this pseudo-character and given it (her) a name derived at least partially from the languages of men and not exclusively from the languages of elves.

In reality, though, given the transparent pandering to teeny-bopper/horny-adolescent consumer demographics, the name most likely means "actress with breasts from the television series Lost who mostly appears in tight-fitting jeans and a wet t-shirt."

As for all the Tree-Worshipping stuff -- especially in Northern Europe -- I recommend Chapter IX from Sir James George Frazer's The Golden Bough (a Study in Magic and Religion):

http://www.bartleby.com/196/17.html

Personally, though, if I had to choose between gods in trees vs godesses in tight-fitting jeans and wet t-shirts, I'd choose, well, ...

[Galadriel55]

(I'm sure this was mentioned before, but I can't find where)

"Tauriel" - Daughter of the Forest - could have no other meaning than "The Daughter of the Mirkwood Forest". PJ and his simplifications. :rolleyes:

I think it's better that PJ invented his own name, even if he used Tolkien' elvish. I can't help associating "Itaril" with Idril (wel, PJ took it from here), and I don't want to lose respect for her. :p

[Galin]

Also Itaril is attested as the Quenya form of Idril, so while not impossible, shirly something Sindarin is better here.

Tauriel is not derived from a Mannish language, and fits Quenya in form and meaning as well as Grey elven... though again better thought of as Sindarin for an Elf of Taur-e-Ndaedelos.

[Nerwen]

J. R. R. Tolkien did not invent this pseudo-character Itaril/Tauriel. Peter Jackson did. And Peter Jackson says that the name means "Daughter of Mirkwood," referring to the name that men gave to Greenwood Forest after the Necromancer (i.e., Sauron) began spreading his evil shadow over the place in 1050 of the Third Age. Peter Jackson, a man (of sorts) has created this pseudo-character and given it (her) a name derived at least partially from the languages of men and not exclusively from the languages of elves.

What G55 and Galen said. The name is Elvish, not Mannish, and doesn't literally mean "Daughter of Mirkwood", anyway. It's really not a bad choice.

Of course, this is to say nothing of what the actual character will be like, something about which we can only speculate.

[narfforc]

If such a person as Tauriel ever existed then it is by no means whatsoever that she would be Daughter of Mirkwood Forest. If she were related to Thranduil or his father Oropher she may well have been a Sindar and not Silvan, if so then she may have been a survivor of Doriath or come from Lorien, nothing can be taken for granted here........ if you are going to make things up then why not make her the sister of Amdir or Amroth.....Thranduils wife....Legolas's sister.... blah blah blah.. we know nothing of this elf other than she doesn't exist... the same as Lurtz didn't and Ugluk did.

[Galin]

Forest-daughter is an apt name for a female Elf who lives in a forest, whether Sindarin, Silvan, or Avarin. Just like L(a)egolas 'Green-leaves' is a good 'foresty' kind of name.

That said, Jackson's 'loose translation' and description (I think he refers to her as Silvan) points to her being one of the Tawarwaith of Mirkwood.

[Galadriel]

Forest-daughter is an apt name for a female Elf who lives in a forest, whether Sindarin, Silvan, or Avarin. Just like L(a)egolas 'Green-leaves' is a good 'foresty' kind of name.

Though you have to admit, 'Forest Daughter' is a much more Mary Sue-ish name than 'Green Leaves', especially when given to an OC.

[Morthoron]

I fell in love with the "forest daughter",
And it took quite a while to get her.
For she's more prolific than she ought'er
With many an Elf for to bed her.
And now I've had trouble passing water
Ever since I met her.

[Galin]

Though you have to admit, 'Forest Daughter' is a much more Mary Sue-ish name than 'Green leaves', especially when given to an OC.

Heheh; I guess for some this name simply will not prove good enough ;)

In any case, I note Lúthien 'flower-daughter' according to Tolkien after The Lord of the Rings was published (before The Lord of the Rings was in print Tolkien imagined it meant 'enchantress' rather). Here -ien 'daughter' rather than -iel in Tinúviel 'twilight-daughter, nightingale'

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

I fell in love with the "forest daughter",
And it took quite a while to get her.
For she's more prolific than she ought'er
With many an Elf for to bed her.
And now I've had trouble passing water
Ever since I met her.

OK. Nice idea. So how about:

Elvish STDs

I fell in lust with the "forest daughter."
Through bushes and brambles, for ages I sought her.
She wanted a ring, so I heard, which I bought her
From dwarves who for payment insisted I slaughter
Some goblins for them. This I did, then I brought her
The thing she desired. Was she happy? No, not her.
It turned out her mind she had changed, now she thought her
Affections best lavished on men who had fought her.
So this I did, too. And I won! I had caught her!
But bad luck for me, no one ever had taught her
About elf diseases, and so when I got her
She gave me a pain when I try to pass water.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

RELEASE ONE of this “Itaril” idea crashed
And burned because the concept truly stank.
Rebranded then as “Tauriel,” and unabashed,
RELEASE TWO offered even less: a blank
Generic name with nothing but the same rehashed
'Strong female role" -- or Mary Sue -- to thank.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

"I'm five feet two,
With eyes of blue,
With brown hair to my shoulders --
A manly elf
So full of self
The ladies say he smoulders."

Kurt Vonnegut, Welcome to the Monkey House

You-Know-Him

He's six feet two,
Has eyes of blue
And blonde hair to his buttocks --
An action elf
Right off the shelf,
Direct from Sears and Roebuck's.
You-Know-Her

She's five feet eight
With eyes of slate
And hair down past her shoulders.
A killer elf,
Pure Death herself,
With breasts as big as boulders.

Michael Murry, The Misfortune Teller

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

If at first you can't sell Mary Sue as "itaril," change the spelling of her name to T-a-u-r-i-e-l and try again.

A Name by any other Name ...

Daughter of vegetation,
Child of the flowers and plants,
Offspring of trite derivation,
Sweetheart of movie romance,

Formula role for an actor,
Paid to look lovely on cue,
Storywise, hardly a factor:
Anything sexy will do.

Show up for filming and fake it
Who’s to care what you might do?
Jiggle and wiggle and shake it.
Strike a cute pose for the crew

Try to look fierce yet alluring
Try to look deadly but sweet
Prior to, after, and during
Scenes where you turn up the heat

“What’s in a name?” you inquire.
“Nothing at all,” we reply.
Just fan the flames of desire
Then have the good grace to die.

Michael Murry, The Misfortune Teller

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Actress Evangeline Lily worries that Tolkien "purists" won't like her wet-T-shirt impression of an elf-chick security guard named Itaril/Tauriel (or, whatever) who just so happens to have no place in the story that Tolkien wrote. Speaking only for my impure self, I'd say she has good cause to feel that way. I had almost forgotten her, but If she makes one more public announcement reminding me of her needless and pointless presence in The Hobbit, I may have to write another scatological poem in her dishonor. ...

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2011/09/23/48408-evangeline-lilly-anxious-over-hobbit-role/

[Galadriel55]

But Lilly admits she is terrified Tolkien devotees won't respond well when the movie epic is released next year

She better be! Though it's not her fault. Blame PJ.

"The Hobbit didn't include female characters at all. I can see why additional characters were needed to round out the story as an adaptation, especially female characters.

"I am very concerned that people will watch and I'll be the black mark on the film. I know how adamant the purists are and I'm one of them."

I kinda wonder if she really is, or if she's saying this just to please me... well, us, "purists". If I was asked to play a stupid hot elf-chick (not that I'd ever be :rolleyes:) I would refuse, unless I was up to my ears in debt and needed money that badly.

[Mithalwen]

Well it depends what her role is. If it just happens that there is a raft elf who happens to be a female named Tauriel I doubt many will be so bothered as if she in some way befriends Frodo and aids him liberate the dwarves. Which I fear since I don't htinkI have seen casting for the chief Gaoler and Galion.

[Galadriel55]

But, you see, the point is that there shouldn't be a female rafter. What would a female do on the raft? They have better things to do. There must be some purpose for such a character. And that could be no other than playing the hot-elf-chick-princess-Xena.

Her role has to be very important, otherwise why would they go through all the trouble with Ronan, and then with Lily? Obviously it's not just a random rafter (that is both uncanonical and pointless)...

[Mithalwen]

Not necessarily so. Obviously the silvan elves in HoME Tolkien says that among the Eldar while some tasks tended to be carried out by neri or nissi there was no absolute bar (save I think Lembas) and women only fought in defence... it amuses me that food cooking was largely the province of male elves which leads me to suspect that barbecue featured heavily and hope that they did their own washing up....

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2011/10/03/48623-lilly-talks-tauriel-in-elvish/

She just won't shut up. She keeps telling anyone who will listen that, yes, she really does have a part in this movie -- no matter how lame and unnecessary -- and also that she gets to practice all sorts of language and stuff for whatever she gets to do in a movie that doesn't require her presence.

Itaril/Tauriel
Please shut your trap a spell

Elvish or English
You're just not what we would wish

OK, you got a part:
Wet T-shirt Hooters' tart

Just what The Hobbit needs:
Elf-chick that really bleeds

[Inziladun]

I like this:

"Pete, Fran and Phil, they're not going to create a character who is not true to Tolkien's world," she said, referring to Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Phillippa Boyens, who co-wrote the screenplay for The Hobbit.

Really? Like they wouldn't twist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arwen) one of Tolkien's characters in directions contrary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faramir) to their depictions in the books, for the sake of being more "cinematic"?

And she's admittedly afraid of "rabid fans". Like I've been saying, since Liv Tyler's still thriving, Ms. Lilly should have no worries. ;)

[mark12_30]

I find "Forest Daughter" vaguely reminiscent of "River Daughter" and it doesn't horrify me too much.

...after all this hate and discontent, I almost hope that I like her.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

I see where the studio -- which otherwise enforces total secrecy -- continues allowing You-Know-Her to blab in public, hoping to drum up some kind of mall maiden interest in a Mary Sue elvish security guard with large breasts. Oh, please. Just hand me the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. Why drag Tolkien into this smut?

And how does one "open up" about completely contrived emptiness? I liked the cleavage on display but couldn't bear to listen to the promotional blurb. Therefore, I'll just post the link for those with a stronger stomach than I possess.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2011/10/07/48803-hobbit-in-5-evangeline-lilly-opens-up-about-playing-tauriel-sir-ian-mckellan-is-a-pub-owner/

I get the point that You-Know-Her has a part in this movie playing something or someone that Peter Jackson first tried to sell as "Itaril" and -- when that blew up in his face -- tried again with another name, "Tauriel." Whatever.

If at first you cannot sell
That which doesn't go down well
Try again, and hope like hell
That no one gags from just the smell

[Elfchick7]

I'm not going to lie, I was prepared to grin and bear her part in the films, but I was insulted by that AccessHollywood interview on TORN. I mean, if the point of the interview was to allay our fears, then calling us rabid and then intimating that we would be pacified by the fact that she acted in LOST was definitely not the way to go.

Also, that vapid reporter has no idea what she is talking about. I have met many Tolkien fans over the years and they are not the least bit rabid. On the contrary, they are well-adjusted, well-read, intellectual sorts, who enjoy good literature and intelligent, reasoned conversations. So, unless rabid has become the new slang for "capable of critical thinking", or "unwilling to be force-fed the rubbish that frequently comes out of Hollywood", then that interview missed the mark in a huge way.

[Nerwen]

Where'd they get the reporter from? Cryogenic storage? Who talks like that?:confused:

[Galadriel55]

To-oriel? And they said something about learning pronounciation... :rolleyes: It's not enough that they have to stick her in, they can't even say her name?... :rolleyes:

Elfchick, could you please give a link to that interview? I'm not very familiar with TORN and I couldn't find the interview you were talking about...

[Galin]

I noticed the reporter didn't pronounce the name correctly, but I assume the actors will be coached (not that the actors got everything correct in the earlier films in any case).

[Elfchick7]

Here's the video: http://www.accesshollywood.com/dish-of-salt-evangeline-lilly-dishes-on-filming-the-hobbit_video_1359582

Here's the TORN article that refers to it: http://www.3news.co.nz/Evangeline-Lilly-anxious-over-Hobbit-role/tabid/418/articleID/227040/Default.aspx

[Galadriel55]

Oh, sure, PJ would never create a character that doesn't belong in Tolkien's world! :mad:

[mark12_30]

Actually, skimming back through this thread I find "rabid" a rather apt description. I was hoping that movie makers would read the Barrow-Downs for good ideas but I confess I would be quite embarassed to find that PJ had read this thread. The old pre-LOTR-movie threads had plenty of healthy debate about what the movies might hold, but there was little venom involved, unlike this thread which consists mostly of venom.

This discussion is not up to Down's standards at all.

[Elfchick7]

Actually, skimming back through this thread I find "rabid" a rather apt description. I was hoping that movie makers would read the Barrow-Downs for good ideas but I confess I would be quite embarassed to find that PJ had read this thread. The old pre-LOTR-movie threads had plenty of healthy debate about what the movies might hold, but there was little venom involved, unlike this thread which consists mostly of venom.

This discussion is not up to Down's standards at all.

I think that there is a bit of venom, but more disappointment and skepticism. Personally, I have been able to take the films with a grain of salt and enjoy them for what they got right and understand that the changes are just PJs vision (which I happen to disagree with on some points). And while this particular thread has drawn some of the more bitter perspectives to the forefront, I would say that "rabid" is still an ill-chosen adjectives. Even if it was accurate (which I still contest) from a PR perspective it sort of defeats the purpose of the interview, which was to make the so-called "rabid" fans more receptive to the character of Tauriel/Itaril.

[Inziladun]

Actually, skimming back through this thread I find "rabid" a rather apt description. I was hoping that movie makers would read the Barrow-Downs for good ideas but I confess I would be quite embarassed to find that PJ had read this thread. The old pre-LOTR-movie threads had plenty of healthy debate about what the movies might hold, but there was little venom involved, unlike this thread which consists mostly of venom.

This discussion is not up to Down's standards at all.

You may be right about this thread being a bit acerbic in tone.

However, that may be explained, if not condoned, by the apparent intention of PJ and Co. to repeat some of the very elements the "rabid" book fans railed against in the LOTR movies.

[Galadriel55]

However, that may be explained, if not condoned, by the apparent intention of PJ and Co. to repeat some of the very elements the "rabid" book fans railed against in the LOTR movies.

Well said! Yet I think that there are more "'rabid' movie fans" in the crowd than "'rabid' books fans", so it pays off for them.


Personally, I'm not more bitter about Itaril/Tauriel than about the fashion-magazine-dwarves or whatever other Hollywood nonesense is put into the film. It's the general effect of all that. It's just that more fuss has been made around this particular character. It's because there is a special thread dedicated to ranting about her (mostly in a bad way :rolleyes: :p). Because I saw so many more news articles about Ronan and Lilly than about Bilbo or Thorin or Gandalf, or any other character.

I don't believe that she's any minor character either, with all the "big deal" going on about her. She must have a significant enough role. And by the looks of it she will not be a maid servant who does little things to push the plot in Thranduil's palace*, but a member of the Guard who showed exceptional fighting skills at a young age, who falls in love with Mr. Greenleaf and most likely goes to battle with him. Call me a complete pessimist, but I have a feeling that she will get more attention from movie fans than Bilbo.

*And that still could be done, IMO, without making her a piece of furniture but also not shoving her into the front (for exmple, she could find Bilbo and tell him the perfect moment to escape, maybe put some sleeping potion into the guard's wine or somesuch to help him a little bit. This would still be different than the original Hobbit, but I find it much better than being the hot princess Xena in a children's story. And this is just one of the many ways she could become a part of the plot without upsetting it).

[Bêthberry]

Actually, skimming back through this thread I find "rabid" a rather apt description. I was hoping that movie makers would read the Barrow-Downs for good ideas but I confess I would be quite embarassed to find that PJ had read this thread. The old pre-LOTR-movie threads had plenty of healthy debate about what the movies might hold, but there was little venom involved, unlike this thread which consists mostly of venom.

This discussion is not up to Down's standards at all.

Here, here, Mark.

I'm not known for my great enthusiasm for the movie--;)--but it does have to be pointed out that Tolkien himself once posited the possibility that other hands would add to his stories and some of his academic essays discuss how subsequent writers change stories (see, for example, his essay on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight).

There isn't anything necessarily wrong with adding a female character per se. If Tolkien's creation really cannot accept the inclusion of a new female character, then maybe there is something to the arguments that Tolkien has a problem with female characters.)

I might not have much faith in Jackson to create a character who belongs in Tolkien's Middle-earth, but every artist does have a right to create his own vision. (Where Jackson earns my ire is his claim that he was faithful to Middle-earth. Such a statement completely ignores he debt also to Star Wars). Until we actually see the movies, we don't know what direction he is taking. All of this is just movie hype and a way of generating buzz about the movie.

And in some ways it reminds me of the horrible vituperation visited on Amy Winehouse when she died. There are plenty of male rock stars who suffered the same affliction but they never received the vitriole she did. Why all the focus on the female character and not on the dwarves?

[Inziladun]

I'm not known for my great enthusiasm for the movie--;)--but it does have to be pointed out that Tolkien himself once posited the possibility that other hands would add to his stories and some of his academic essays discuss how subsequent writers change stories (see, for example, his essay on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight).

I have to wonder though, whether celluloid is the medium he would have preferred for "additions", and not books.

There isn't anything necessarily wrong with adding a female character per se. If Tolkien's creation really cannot accept the inclusion of a new female character, then maybe there is something to the arguments that Tolkien has a problem with female characters.)

A problem with female characters? How's that? Galadriel is one of the most powerful and wise in LOTR. Lúthien with Beren entered the gates of Hell and recaptured a Silmaril from an incarnate "fallen angel'.

Personally, I have no particular issue with the gender of Tauriel. I equally dislike the idea of Alfrid, another invented, unnecessary character apparently on the way along with Tauriel.

And in some ways it reminds me of the horrible vituperation visited on Amy Winehouse when she died. There are plenty of male rock stars who suffered the same affliction but they never received the vitriole she did. Why all the focus on the female character and not on the dwarves?

I don't see the parallel between this and Amy Winehouse. And why have the Dwarves not thus far been the object of vilification? Perhaps because they actually appeared in the book.

[Boromir88]

I don't see the parallel between this and Amy Winehouse. And why have the Dwarves not thus far been the object of vilification? Perhaps because they actually appeared in the book.

Well Amy Winehouse was slammed with hatred not only in life, but after too. And I think the parallel is there's some shock (and probably disgust) at the vitriol that went towards her. Let me make this parallel, Gollum (who's actor, Andy Serkis did make the addiction comparison between Gollum and the Ring). I think Gandalf put Gollum's story the best to Frodo. It's a sad story, and do people really take that much pleasure out of their hurtful language?

The actress playing Tauriel seems worried about any hate that may be swung her way by book fans for actually playing an invented character. I can't see it coming in the way of personal attacks, more of the anger seems directed towards Jackson's decision and the role itself. But then again, you see how much hate can be in a person, and the actress' worries aren't surprising.

I was a bit surprised by some of the comments, and I can still remember some of the old (but brilliantly passionate) flame wars. The surprise is more due to not what was said or whether someone likes the new character or not, but how it was said and the quality. Because it looks like an overreaction to something that...

1. Shouldn't be surprising
2. No one knows what the role Tauriel will have in the movie yet.

With regards to 1. Jackson's invented characters before and his track record shows the characters he invents play a very minimal role. Either to serve as someone's officer or to have some minimal interaction and dialogue when it's needed. It's not much different than inventing characters for a good RPG.

Jackson's already lent several interesting look-ins to the production of the movie and the dwarves. So, I've got to wonder, like Mark, why all the *boom*doom**dums* on the goblin drums, about this person?

I don't know how much of an influx in members will come when The Hobbit comes out, I mean the LOTR movies are what, already 8-10 years old? That's old enough where a whole new age of people will probably be introduced to the story for the first time and will be excited just as many of us were when the LOTR movies were in sight. Love 'em, like 'em, hate 'em, don't care about 'em....whatever, this site will probably get a boost of new and curious fans. A bit of respect and opennessto discussion over the good and bad with the new movies could go a long way to welcoming new members

[Elfchick7]

The actress playing Tauriel seems worried about any hate that may be swung her way by book fans for actually playing an invented character. I can't see it coming in the way of personal attacks, more of the anger seems directed towards Jackson's decision and the role itself. But then again, you see how much hate can be in a person, and the actress' worries aren't surprising.

....

A bit of respect and opennessto discussion over the good and bad with the new movies could go a long way to welcoming new members

I would like to clarify my position on this matter. I have no anger/hatred/venom towards PJ, Evangeline Lilly, or anyone else, for that matter. I have no personal problem with the books having been adapted into films, or with most of the little changes that PJ made. (I realize that on that point I am a majority.) I have a great deal of respect for film as an artform, when it is well used.

That said, when I first heard of the addition of the character Itaril/Tauriel, my heart sank. I was worried that it would turn out to be something like what sadly happened to the adaptation of Prince Caspian. As I watch the behind the scenes footage and read up on PJ's facebook page, I became cautiously hopeful that, while not the book in any way, The Hobbit would turn out to be a lovely tribute to Tolkien's work that would draw in an entirely new generation.

However, I do find that all of the publicity surrounding the character of Tauriel is chipping away at my hope. Not because of Evangeline Lilly, who is handling the whole awkward situation with much grace, in my opinion, but because of the general (albeit not unfounded) assumption that many of the fans will react negatively. There are Tolkien fans who will never be pleased with any film adaptation of the books, but I do feel that as the publicity around this character grows, it invites people to ask the question, "What have they done to feel that this much damage control is necessary?"

Frankly, the reporter was rude and patronizing. That annoyed me. I moved on. The fear still remains that all of this damage control is, in fact, to prepare us for a huge detour from Tolkien's original work.

[Nerwen]

I will repeat what I've said before: there is, in principle, nothing wrong with adding more named roles to "The Hobbit"– in fact, I'd say it's necessary, in order to "flesh out" groups like the Lake Men and Wood Elves- who in the book are given very little individuality at all. And I think there has been far too much jumping to conclusions, too much wild speculation, and yes, too much venom. (Expressed, if I may say so, in what at times has been a distinctly sexist manner.) We simply don't know anything about this "Tauriel" role yet, and that's that. Superfluous? Maybe. Elven tart in a wet T-shirt? Why? PJ et al., whatever other sins they may have committed, did *not* put anyone like that in the LotR movies.

However, let's not let the reaction to the reaction get out of hand either. (The Amy Winehouse affair being a case in point, as very soon her fans were ready to scream "hater" at anyone unwilling to join in their mutual weeping-and-scar-baring fest– I copped some of that myself.) The original "Itaril" character was pretty darned worrisome, and I can see why some people are ready to fear the worst of "Tauriel". On that note, though– the "damage control" Elfchick speaks of may be more because of the general response to "Itaril", than because "Tauriel" is going to be just as bad. That is, they're in damage-control mode, all right, but perhaps it's because of damage that's happened already.

[Elfchick7]

Nerwen, you make an excellent point.

[Bêthberry]

Sorry for a tardy reply. Real life and all that . . .

I have to wonder though, whether celluloid is the medium he would have preferred for "additions", and not books.

Tolkien mentions song and music, so despite his hesitation (stated elsewhere) over drama, any art form which incorporates song and music must have been within his terms of reference. And despite my general dislike of the trilogy, I have to admit that the music is one of its superb points (nods to fellow Canuck Howard Shore ;) ).

A problem with female characters? How's that? Galadriel is one of the most powerful and wise in LOTR. Lúthien with Beren entered the gates of Hell and recaptured a Silmaril from an incarnate "fallen angel'.

I had used the conditional rather than the declarative in my original post. And all I was meaning was that there is almost an anti-female edge to the venom the Itaril character is receiving. The numbers of Tolkien scholars and fans who defend against the accusations about his poor depiction of women is legion. See the several chapters, for instance, in Alex Lewis's and Elizabeth Currie's Uncharted Realms of Tolkien which address this issue at length. (Lewis is, if I am not mistaken, a former Chair of the Tolkien Society.)

I don't see the parallel between this and Amy Winehouse.

Boro has done an excellent job of reading my mind and explaining the parallel.

And why have the Dwarves not thus far been the object of vilification? Perhaps because they actually appeared in the book.

Yes, there are dwarves in the book, but those dwarves are not the Peter Jackson dwarves. Jackson has sexed up the dwarves--they are all pretty much hunks now--something not quite in keeping with a children's story, so it's quite possible that the double-vision of Tolkien's TH is being done away with. (And by double vision I mean its nature both as children's tale and as adult story.)

[Galadriel55]

In reply to those posts that talk about gender problems:

I have no issue with the gender by itself. I have an issue with Xena-ing the role. I recall reading (in different places, too) that the character showed good fighting skills at an early age, and because of that was appointed to be one of the King's guards. Moreover, she's supposed to fall in love with an Elven Lord (guess who :rolleyes:). I think this will be just as bad as the Xenarwen of LOTR (minor character, sure, but does enough damage).

[Boromir88]

I would like to clarify my position on this matter. I have no anger/hatred/venom towards PJ, Evangeline Lilly, or anyone else, for that matter. I have no personal problem with the books having been adapted into films, or with most of the little changes that PJ made. (I realize that on that point I am a majority.) I have a great deal of respect for film as an artform, when it is well used.

In some of the plays I was in there was always problems with other cast members not showing up. Sometimes it angered the director to the point where he'd boil over and rip the heads off the the ones who were coming and understood what to do. I'd sit there knowing the ones he's really upset with are the ones who wouldn't come. They were the ones who needed to hear how upset the director was, but of course never would.

This happens frequently, the ones who need to hear it often don't, or ignore. The ones who don't take it to heart because they already understood but don't want to go misunderstood. Where was I going? Oh, yeah, for my part...the clarification of your stance wasn't necessary. :)

I was trying to raise a more general point and not one specifically on Tauriel or any specific members criticism of the character. Although, she was part of it, because I honestly didn't understand where some of the harshness was coming from. I mean, I think a lot of book fans feared what Jackson would do to Tolkien's story before they even knew who Jackson was and before the first movie came out. After seeing what he did to the LOTR movies, there may be more fear on what he will do with The Hobbit. However, I will ask to go back to the first experience of the LOTR movies.

I left enjoyed and relieved. I was captivated by the films and relieved because I left feeling it could have been a lot worse. I think Jackson got carried away in his attempt to put his ideas in the story, when there was absolutely no reason to. There's no doubt he could have done more, but in his line of work you need an ego. It was that ego which got in the way of staying closer to the books, but it was also that ego which held off and resisted the hand that Newline wanted to stick in.

I'm not saying everyone had to leave feeling the same way I did. Whether some loved 'em or hated 'em doesn't effect me at all. Jackson's a big boy who doesn't need my defending. But, where I was getting at is, the movies drew me to the much larger Tolkien community. It's why I came here. Why have I stayed here over the years, when my interest in the films has continually dropped since my original enjoyment? Tolkien's a far more interesting chap than Jackson, and the lovely Wights waiting to welcome. So, I attempted to recall my first watching of the films after I read and was taken aback by the harshness. Realized that despite my waning interest, I did greatly enjoy them and they were what brought me to the larger Tolkien community. The Hobbit films are coming a decade later. There's going to be a whole new age group who will probably expereince the story for the first time. They will be interested and curious, and whatever one feels about the films, we shouldn't forget how excited we were when experiencing Tolkien's stories for the first time (and whether it was through Jackson's movies or not).

Yes, there are dwarves in the book, but those dwarves are not the Peter Jackson dwarves. Jackson has sexed up the dwarves--they are all pretty much hunks now--something not quite in keeping with a children's story, so it's quite possible that the double-vision of Tolkien's TH is being done away with. (And by double vision I mean its nature both as children's tale and as adult story.)~Bethberry

Thanks for the compliment on being able to read your mind, I'll try to do so again, because it's what I meant when I said I was "surprised" by some of the comments. I know this isn't want you mean about the dwarves, but what shocked me the most was some of the "oh great....more large bussomed women running around in skimpy clothes, wielding swords."

Ok. We have Xenarwen, but just step back and think of the costumes in the films, and you realize how overboard the criticism is (and this goes with as much as Jackson exaggerated stuff, I think people can get as equally as exaggerated in their criticisms). Arwen was made into an active role, but come on, she was hardly wearing anything inappropriate with wardrobe malfunctions waiting to happen as she was bouncing around on a stolen horse. Same for Eowyn, who I thought Miranda Otto was made to actually look older than the book Eowyn.

So my mind reading attempt again, yes I know this isn't what you meant about the Dwarves (it just reminded me of the criticisms that shocked me about Tauriel). Because you do raise a good point about the Dwarves getting hunked up and played by some current studly actors. However, I think of the book I'm currently reading (Game of Thrones) and how much I adore the direwolves that follow the Stark kids around. I mean, George Martin has managed to create something as sinister sounding as a direwolf, yet make them completely adorable wolfpups who cutely plod along with the Stark kids everywhere. So, in this ridiculously biased and influenced person's opinion - if Jackson can make the dwarves a motley crew of sexy eye candy, more power to him. :p (I Just hope we don't get a travelling carnival troupe of Gimli's, that's my fear).

[Galadriel55]

I left feeling it could have been a lot worse.

If we were all as optimistic!...

Ok. We have Xenarwen, but just step back and think of the costumes in the films, and you realize how overboard the criticism is (and this goes with as much as Jackson exaggerated stuff, I think people can get as equally as exaggerated in their criticisms). Arwen was made into an active role, but come on, she was hardly wearing anything inappropriate with wardrobe malfunctions waiting to happen as she was bouncing around on a stolen horse. Same for Eowyn, who I thought Miranda Otto was made to actually look older than the book Eowyn.

The costumes in LOTR were very well done, IMO. I think that the wet-shirt-big-bussomed-young-woman-waving-swords-around expression in this discussion talks more about the role of the character, not the appearance. Personally, when I encounter such a descritpion now, I don't visualise the skimpy-dressed girl but I think of the horror of what the character's done to the story.

So my mind reading attempt again, yes I know this isn't what you meant about the Dwarves (it just reminded me of the criticisms that shocked me about Tauriel). Because you do raise a good point about the Dwarves getting hunked up and played by some current studly actors. However, I think of the book I'm currently reading (Game of Thrones) and how much I adore the direwolves that follow the Stark kids around. I mean, George Martin has managed to create something as sinister sounding as a direwolf, yet make them completely adorable wolfpups who cutely plod along with the Stark kids everywhere. So, in this ridiculously biased and influenced person's opinion - if Jackson can make the dwarves a motley crew of sexy eye candy, more power to him. :p (I Just hope we don't get a travelling carnival troupe of Gimli's, that's my fear).

Ummm.... have you seen this picture (http://www.geektown.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/12-dwarves-hobbit.jpg)? I think "sexed up" is a good description.

[Boromir88]

The costumes in LOTR were very well done, IMO. I think that the wet-shirt-big-bussomed-young-woman-waving-swords-around expression in this discussion talks more about the role of the character, not the appearance. Personally, when I encounter such a descritpion now, I don't visualise the skimpy-dressed girl but I think of the horror of what the character's done to the story.

But making that "wet tshirt warrior" criticism is at best an innocent exaggeration for effect and at worst is deliberately misleading.


Ummm.... have you seen this picture (http://www.geektown.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/12-dwarves-hobbit.jpg)? I think "sexed up" is a good description.

I don't believe I disagreed with this, I said if direwolves can be made into adorable bundles of furry cuddliness, than Jackson's attempt to sex up the dwarves....go for it, not a big deal. A bigger issue I'd have is getting 13 movie Gimli's instead of 13 differing dwarves of different backgrounds, experiences and personalities.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55
The costumes in LOTR were very well done, IMO. I think that the wet-shirt-big-bussomed-young-woman-waving-swords-around expression in this discussion talks more about the role of the character, not the appearance. Personally, when I encounter such a descritpion now, I don't visualise the skimpy-dressed girl but I think of the horror of what the character's done to the story.
But making that "wet tshirt warrior" criticism is at best an innocent exaggeration for effect and at worst is deliberately misleading.
I just don't think it's a fair criticism– and since there's really nothing in either the existing movies or the current "Hobbit" publicity to base it on, it just seems to me to say more about the person making it than anything else, quite honestly.

I don't believe I disagreed with this, I said if direwolves can be made into adorable bundles of furry cuddliness, than Jackson's attempt to sex up the dwarves....go for it, not a big deal.
Yes, but what does what a writer does with his own characters– and critters– have to do with the issue of faithfulness in an adaption? I don't see that it does, Boro. (A palaentologist might object, I suppose.)

[Galadriel55]

Do we know what will be in the movies?

The optimists among us say, no, we don't, so let's not ruin our day by wild exaggerative speculation.

The pesimists say, yes, we do, we've seen what happened to LOTR and we can predict what will be in TH, and it's not gonna impress us.

[Nerwen]

Do we know what will be in the movies?

The optimists among us say, no, we don't, so let's not ruin our day by wild exaggerative speculation.

The pesimists say, yes, we do, we've seen what happened to LOTR and we can predict what will be in TH, and it's not gonna impress us.

That's an over-simplification. I, for example, do not at the moment have very high hopes for the "Hobbit" films(s)– but that doesn't make wild speculation any more valid.

And if sound like I'm jumping on the bandwaggon– well, maybe, but the fact is, I've been concerned about some of the comments in this thread for a while.

[Galadriel55]

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

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

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

:D

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

[Inziladun]

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

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

[Elfchick7]

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

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

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

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Boromir88]

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

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

[Galadriel55]

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

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

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

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

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

Or, to lower the standards of discussion further in verse

Verse is always high standart, in my opinion. :)

[Morthoron]

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

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

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

[Galadriel55]

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

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

[Boromir88]

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


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

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

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

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

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

"TMT went beyond good natured, insightful disagreement and personally, I thought it appallingly distasteful." -- Boromir88

Thank you. I'll take that as a compliment.

Frankly, I do not remember directing any unkind or unfair remarks to any other poster in this forum. In fact, I don't think I have "disagreed" with almost anyone here. I have expressed my own opinion and directed my remarks -- in the clearest and most literary way I know how -- distinctly at what I consider a truly lousy idea. And I don't write for children.

Now, if you feel inclined to take umbrage at my manner of expressing myself, then I can't do anything about that. As the Buddha said: You can't give offense to anyone unwilling to take it. Take as little or as much as you like. I have never seen your published standards for forum discussion and I certainly haven't agreed to abide by them. I write what I wish to say. Others can take that or leave that, just as I take or leave what they have to say. I never take offense because I won't allow anyone else to give me any.

Personally, I spent too many years in the United States military and too many of those years in the now-defunct Republic of South Vietnam because the majority of my countrymen thought it impolite and distasteful to bluntly question official stupidity when they had the chance to do something about it. And I lived long enough to see the whole sorry, rats-*** "war" wagon get rolling again for another decade of mindless mayhem and near national bankruptcy. By this late date, few persons in my country seem the slightest bit interested in sanity, so sheepishly accustomed to the criminally insane have they become. You can only stop a war or the erosion of civil liberties before the process starts, not once it gets going.

I feel the same about these films. I don't want to see cheesy Hollywood crap spoil a moment of them, and if I can say or do anything to help prevent that I will. Moaning about it after it happens doesn't interest me in the least. Too late then. On the other hand, fierce and rancid reaction before the crime has a chance of preventing it. For an example, see the antagonistic audience reaction to Jackson's 48 frames-per-second projection speed trailer exhibition that resulted in him showing his latest Hobbit footage at the standard 24 frames-per-second during the recent ComicCon exhibition. Negative feedback can and does work. If people don't like something they should say so. But if they couch their remarks in mealy-mouthed, simpering euphemisms -- i.e., "take out" rather than "kill" -- then no one in a position of power will take them at all seriously. Ridicule that hits the mark accomplishes a lot more than vapid generalizations that fear to "offend" tender sensibilities. Grownups can discuss anything without taking any offense whatsoever. So I write for adults.

As my younger brother the high school teacher and football coach likes to tell his students and players: "You will receive from others in this life precisely the treatment that you are prepared to tolerate." The same goes for crappy films and ruinous, endless "wars." Tolerate them for an instant and you'll get only more of the same.

And by the way, women who serve in real-world military forces -- as opposed to sanitized, choreographed fantasy ones -- stand a greater chance of sexual assault from their fellow male servicemen than they do getting killed in battle by the enemy. I take it that you would would not wish to read any real-world literature or see any graphic films painting for you a picture of what an actual elf-chick security guard's life would resemble. I don't think you have any idea whatsoever. And neither does Peter Jackson and his "strong women" script-writing team. So I don't want to see any of their dance-routines masquerading as orc-and-warg-disemboweling "combat." I'd rather just hear a poetry recitation. Much more useful and believable.

[Bêthberry]

"I have never seen your published standards for forum discussion and I certainly haven't agreed to abide by them. I write what I wish to say. Others can take that or leave that, just as I take or leave what they have to say.

Just to clarify what the forum standards are, TMT, you can find them here:Barrow Downs Forum Policies (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=5993) and here: Guidelines for Forum Posting (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11805).

The Barrow Downs has always been an inclusive discussion forum. That is, very early on the Administrators decided that the general tone of discussion ought to be one which would be appropriate for children, adolescents, and adults, because Tolkien's work appeals to all those audiences. The style was a nod to Tolkien's own civility. That might be a standard now generally not respected in various cultures around the world, but it is a standard which we try to respect here.

By posting here, you agree to abide by these standards. If you don't want to "write for children" then don't post here, because we don't use "children" pejoratively to denigrate civility and respect for others. We disagree, but we don't lard our attacks with insults and sarcasm at the poster.



Frankly, I do not remember directing any unkind or unfair remarks to any other poster in this forum. In fact, I don't think I have "disagreed" with almost anyone here.


I distinctly remember some very rude and sarcastic comments to Formendacil -- comments which were unfair. And other Downers did object to them as something not in keeping with the spirit of the Downs.


Just sayin'.

[Mithalwen]

. Grownups can discuss anything without taking any offense whatsoever. So I write for adults.
.

Just bear in mind that though that this is not an adults only forum. It does have a family friendly policy. While many of the youngsters who joined perhaps because of the first films are now grown up, we do have some younger members and are likely to get more as the new films arrive. I am sure film cynics will have a particular desire to set them on the "true path" ie loving the books as the Prof wrote them and it would be a shame if parents, rightfully concerned about what their young are doing on line felt that this was not a suitable place for them.

I have found many of your posts pithy and extremely funny but some have been a bit near the knuckle and I have actually been suprised that they hadn't been picked up on. I am sorry if this sounds prissy but it is just a case of remembering that we aren't all grown ups and using language accordingly.

[Nerwen]

Misfortune Teller, I myself have very serious doubts indeed about these Hobbit films, which are starting to sound more and more like glorified fan-fiction– but it seems to me, too, that you could just as well discuss them– or even blast them, hey!– while being bit more civil and a bit less crude. Further– though it is fair enough for you to object to Tauriel as a likely Mary-Sue-action-girl–cliché– I regret to say that I've been getting more and more the impression from you of a certain degree of general hostility towards women– or at any any rate towards those who (even in fiction) step outside what you consider a woman's proper place to be. It may be wrong, but that's what I'm getting. I mean, so much of your negativity here seems to have been prompted by the mere addition of a female character, and also by her being a warrior or something (not unheard of in Tolkien's work, so I don't see why it should be in itself considered a travesty).

On a somewhat similar note: as I believe this is not the first time you've introduced a little piece about American foreign policy into a thread about film adaptations, I think I should tell you that it's pretty hard for a reader to know how to respond to this kind of thing. However strong this curious association of ideas may be for you, I doubt many other people share it, so I'm afraid it's just coming across as rather random and confusing, honestly.

I suppose what I'm really saying here is– rail against Jackson and his past and present efforts all you like, but please lighten up a bit, and maybe try and shed some of this extra baggage you seem to be bringing with you. Okay? How about it?:)

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Make sure you get your Young-Elf-Lord + Elf-Chick-Security-Guard toys and posters as soon as they hit Toys-R-Us, Tolkienite consumers, even though you may have to wait another year to actually see these characters "intertwine" in Part Two of a shorter story by J. R. R. Tolkien in which they never appeared, either singly or together.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/09/24/62227-hobbit-toys-hit-store-shelves-tauriel-revealed/#more-62227

Toy-store-merchandize-tie-ins driving a story's narrative and characters may thrill consumers of crap commodities, but I prefer my literate entertainment -- like my drinking water -- pure and not polluted with Hollywood formula industrial waste.

We see them now together
Just like we long suspected:
Her coy, come-hither glances
Leave him (surprise!) erected.

I remember at the conclusion of the Lord of the Rings trilogy where a great many viewers -- including Jack Nicholson -- complained of the "multiple endings" that occurred after King Aragorn and his Elven Princess Arwen had their big kiss at his coronation. The film-makers had spent so much of the narrative trying to beef up this Hollywood romance angle -- hardly mentioned at all by Tolkien -- that the hobbits had become almost an afterthought. I see the same dubious dynamic at work with this completely unnecessary "thing" between the young (only a few thousand years old) Elf Lord Legolas and Itaril (Release 1.0) or Tauriel (Release 2.0) fan-fiction marketing ploy. Any time spent away from Bilbo Baggins makes The Hobbit less about one particular, exemplary hobbit and more about selling tie-in toys and video games to "Tolkienite consumers."

I would lampoon this ludicrous idea in even more scatological verse if only I knew how. Sometimes a dumb idea becomes so much a parody of itself that even poetic license cannot improve upon the inherent irony.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

But, MisfortuneTeller,

Why don't you say what you really think? I mean, don't hold back...

:D

[Inziladun]

Make sure you get your Young-Elf-Lord + Elf-Chick-Security-Guard toys and posters as soon as they hit Toys-R-Us, Tolkienite consumers, even though you may have to wait another year to actually see these characters "intertwine" in Part Two of a shorter story by J. R. R. Tolkien in which they never appeared, either singly or together.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/09/24/62227-hobbit-toys-hit-store-shelves-tauriel-revealed/#more-62227

I like this quote from the article:

[Thranduil's] appearance in the film, while not cannon, is certainly logical and perhaps even likely. His role in Jackson’s films are not yet clear.

Odds are it'll be a "cannon" all right, blowing a Smaug-sized hole into the concept of artistic integrity. :rolleyes:

I'm just waiting for Transformer-style Beorn, going from man to bear, and back again. And will the Master of Lake-town come with a huge pile of gold to allow one to re-enact his running off to the wilderness and dying of dragon-sickness? ;)