First look at Evangeline Lilly in 'The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug'

[Glorthelion]

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/i/2013/06/03/FL-The-Hobbit-Desolation-of-Smaug_1224x760.jpg

[Nerwen]

Hmmn. Perhaps they should have simply named this character “Legolass?”

[Galadriel55]

First impression: Is she the long-lost daughter of long-lost Maglor of something? She looks Feanorian.

Second impression: She looks old and not too beautiful. Bad job, whoever was working on her.

Third impression: Is that quiver hanging on her waist? I think we only saw the ones on the back in LOTR.

[Aganzir]

First impression: Is she the long-lost daughter of long-lost Maglor of something? She looks Feanorian.
Well, red hair was exclusively limited to Mahtan's line... but then again, PJ doesn't have access to that material so he's free to do as he pleases.

The quiver seems to be hanging on her waist indeed. More practical than having it on the back, in my opinion.

I reserve my judgment till I've seen what PJ does with her. I'm not too hopeful because we know what he's capable of, but hey, somebody's got to be the captain of guard, and unlike many, while I'm skeptical by default about all PJ's additions, I don't have a problem with her being a woman.

[Kuruharan]

Wait...I must be way out of the loop, but I thought I read something that said her character had been cut.

Also, there is something about the ears that is bothering me...they are too noticable or something.

And, because of the recent Star Trek movie, I look at her and think "Vulcan." :eek:

[Zigûr]

I have no particular objection to her appearance, although I can't help but feel a slight "cut-price Arwen" vibe for whatever reason.
The most objectionable thing I've heard about this character is the alleged Elf-Dwarf romance (involving Kíli, perhaps?). Seems to just perpetuate the previous film's attitude that Dwarves are only "interesting" if they're basically just short Men.

Incidentally, is there a particular reason, do you think, that Tolkien never (to the best of my knowledge) suggests "half-Dwarves" or any interbreeding of that kind? Besides the insular nature of Dwarven culture, I mean. I always supposed that being "adoptive" children of Eru, there was something slightly alien about them in almost a physiological sense which put something of a divide between them and the explicitly "human" races which interbred: Elves, Men (including Hobbits) and Orcs (assuming they were Fallen Children). That's my more lore-based reason for why I find the romance rumour a bit dodgy.

Knowing PJ's tendencies though she'll probably end up with about three lines of incidental dialogue in large group scenes and lots of shots of her and Legolas intercut fighting spiders, werewolves, goblins, Ringwraiths, giant robotic Saurons, mûmakil riding slightly larger mûmakil, and Azog. Well, maybe that last one's a bit far-fetched...

[Inziladun]

Incidentally, is there a particular reason, do you think, that Tolkien never (to the best of my knowledge) suggests "half-Dwarves" or any interbreeding of that kind? Besides the insular nature of Dwarven culture, I mean. I always supposed that being "adoptive" children of Eru, there was something slightly alien about them in almost a physiological sense which put something of a divide between them and the explicitly "human" races which interbred: Elves, Men (including Hobbits) and Orcs (assuming they were Fallen Children). That's my more lore-based reason for why I find the romance rumour a bit dodgy.

Well, inter-racial combinations were rare even between Men and Elves, and they were fundamentally more alike then Dwarves were to either. Add that to the fact that Dwarven women could have had longer beards than the male part of the equation, and maybe there lies the explanation. ;)

Knowing PJ's tendencies though she'll probably end up with about three lines of incidental dialogue in large group scenes and lots of shots of her and Legolas intercut fighting spiders, werewolves, goblins, Ringwraiths, giant robotic Saurons, mûmakil riding slightly larger mûmakil, and Azog. Well, maybe that last one's a bit far-fetched...

That's far too restrained for PJ. ;)

[Bêthberry]

There were warrior women in ancient mythologies--the Amazons. They were even said to resort to mastectomies in order to improve their use of weapons.

So, like Aganzir, I don't necessarily object to adding a female character (which I view as less troublesome than mucking up Arwen). I just don't have much faith that the director will handle the character well. Or the writers for that matter.

It would be really nice, for instance, if the added new female character passed the Bechdel test.

[Inziladun]

It would be really nice, for instance, if the added new female character passed the Bechdel test.

You know, Tolkien was able to present us with strong, memorable female characters like Morwen, Éowyn, and of course Galadriel, without coming near Hollywood-type clichés. Can PJ pull that off? Not if the past is any indication...

[Galadriel55]

Maybe I should have put this in Mirth, because it's so amusing, but it relates...

http://www.figures.com/forums/attachments/news/36731d1349106674-bridge-directs-hobbit-new-photos-hobbit_thebridge_2pack_legoals_tauriel.jpg?stc=1 (link (http://www.figures.com/forums/attachments/news/36731d1349106674-bridge-directs-hobbit-new-photos-hobbit_thebridge_2pack_legoals_tauriel.jpg?stc=1), in case you can't see the picture, because I can't)

Look at these adorable lovebird action figures! Now, maybe the toy makers know more details about the plot than PJ lets on?... :Merisu:

http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/33400000/Tauriel-and-Orc-Behind-the-Scenes-tauriel-33476287-1280-734.jpg

Now what does Tauriel do behind the scenes, we wonders...

[Bêthberry]

You know, Tolkien was able to present us with strong, memorable female characters like Morwen, Éowyn, and of course Galadriel, without coming near Hollywood-type clichés. Can PJ pull that off? Not if the past is any indication...

I might get hounded down for this, but there is more to presenting female characters than simply being strong. It is possible that Tolkien would not pass the Bechdel test either.


1. It has to have at least two women in it,
2. who talk to each other,
3. about something besides a man.

[Inziladun]

I might get hounded down for this, but there is more to presenting female characters than simply being strong. It is possible that Tolkien would not pass the Bechdel test either.

Tolkien hits it with Melian and Galadriel, if not in LOTR, and to me that alone sets him above PJ's observed work in the matter.

[Bêthberry]

Tolkien hits it with Melian and Galadriel, if not in LOTR, and to me that alone sets him above PJ's observed work in the matter.

The interesting point about the Bechdal test is that it is not based on personal preference or opinion. It examines how characters relate to each other in specific terms, the topic of their conversations.

When you say that "Tolkien hits it" I really have no idea what you mean except that you approve of or like the characters--which of course is your right. I'm not much of a fan of Galadriel because I don't like the "type" she is, the revered, distant beauty. The emphasis on physical beauty is a drawback to me, but that is my personal opinion. Her characterisation is also confused, rather than consistent, through the ages. This bugs me too.

Melian is more consistent and I like her trait of singing but even there I am bothered by the concept of her "girdle" which maintains the peace and serenity of Doriath. Again, this is my own personal grudge about the idea of a magical barrier that keeps a place safe. I don't believe that 'good' can be maintained against 'evil' that way. It's possible Tolkien didn't either because every time he uses the concept, it fails.

Now, if The Silm had given us an extended passage where the two--Galadriel and Melian--discuss the fate of the world, that would have been something which would have demonstrated their intellect and wisdom. But we don't get that. Mostly we are told of their wise decisions rather than seeing how they negotiate the correct stance. Ultimately, we get a mum who really does not defend her daughter against an overbearing and autocratic husband/father. She never challenges the patriarchy for the sake of her daughter. Again, this is my personal value rather than a guideline for discussing how characters are presented.

I will say that at least Tolkien didn't indulge in pyrotechnics with Galadriel, which a certain director did. With Gandalf, we get exposition about his attraction to the ring. With Galadriel, we get fireworks. I would much rather have seen the actress emote.

Makes me very dubious about this Tauriel. Perhaps her red hair is supposed to be a joke about all those Mary Sues?

[Inziladun]

When you say that "Tolkien hits it" I really have no idea what you mean except that you approve of or like the characters--which of course is your right.

I meant that that scene seems to pass the Bechdal Test.

Melian is more consistent and I like her trait of singing but even there I am bothered by the concept of her "girdle" which maintains the peace and serenity of Doriath. Again, this is my own personal grudge about the idea of a magical barrier that keeps a place safe. I don't believe that 'good' can be maintained against 'evil' that way. It's possible Tolkien didn't either because every time he uses the concept, it fails.

Didn't Galadriel maintain her "realm" in a very similar fashion, with the power of Nenya? She seemed to have had some success. Notice in each case it is the female who ultimately defends the home, despite armed might being in the hands of the males.

Now, if The Silm had given us an extended passage where the two--Galadriel and Melian--discuss the fate of the world, that would have been something which would have demonstrated their intellect and wisdom. But we don't get that. Mostly we are told of their wise decisions rather than seeing how they negotiate the correct stance. Ultimately, we get a mum who really does not defend her daughter against an overbearing and autocratic husband/father. She never challenges the patriarchy for the sake of her daughter. Again, this is my personal value rather than a guideline for discussing how characters are presented.

Interesting. How would you characterize Melian's dealings with another mum, Morwen?

I will say that at least Tolkien didn't indulge in pyrotechnics with Galadriel, which a certain director did. With Gandalf, we get exposition about his attraction to the ring. With Galadriel, we get fireworks. I would much rather have seen the actress emote.

Would that be an overreaction on the part of PJ, akin to warrior-princess Arwen? As in the only way to show power in a woman is physical demonstrations?

Makes me very dubious about this Tauriel. Perhaps her red hair is supposed to be a joke about all those Mary Sues?

Is PJ really subtle enough for that to be the case? :rolleyes:

[Galadriel55]

Makes me very dubious about this Tauriel. Perhaps her red hair is supposed to be a joke about all those Mary Sues?

I think you're right here throughout, except for one thing: I don't think it's really a joke. ;):Merisu:

[Mithalwen]

I do mind her being a woman or at least having a woman imposed on a book character - though from the barrel scenes and the casting we have clearly lost my favourite scene of Galion getting sozzled with the captain of the guard. While Elf women could and did fight in defence having a woman shoehorned in as a military leader is hugely patronising as well as uncanonical. Women do not have to bear arms to equal men. And she looks dreadful.... the work of Weta and the costumes were one of the things I actively enjoyed from the first films - Evangeline Lilly, who is unquestionably a beautiful woman, looks as if she is in fancy dress for a convention with the bad henna dye job and the jokeshop ears.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I do seriously look forward to the clip from DOS with Bilbo on water-skis, jumping over a shark.

[Aganzir]

Incidentally, is there a particular reason, do you think, that Tolkien never (to the best of my knowledge) suggests "half-Dwarves" or any interbreeding of that kind?
I agree on your interpretation about their alien nature (alien also being the word Tolkien uses of dwarves in relation to everybody else), starting from the fact that Aulë is supposed to gather their fëar in a special place, separate from the children of Ilúvatar.

I don't remember any particular passage that states definitively that procreation between Men and Dwarves doesn't exist, but the absolute lack of any speculation about it implies heavily that this is the case. Cultural isolation and differences aside, I'm not sure it would even be biologically possible.

I've also heard rumours about
Tauriel and Legolas having something going on
Tauriel having a crush on Thranduil
Tauriel saving the dwarves from Thranduil's dungeon
No idea how reliable these are, but cheer up - they all can't be true!

You know, Tolkien was able to present us with strong, memorable female characters like Morwen, Éowyn, and of course Galadriel, without coming near Hollywood-type clichés. Can PJ pull that off? Not if the past is any indication...
Tolkien was also able to present us with strong, memorable male characters, but could PJ pull it off? Not half as well as Tolkien.

Still, PJ is going to make uncanonical changes, and although the quality of the story he tells isn't even close to Tolkien, some changes are better and some worse than others. I can't tell which Tauriel is before I've seen her, but as a rule, making an additional character woman is far from the worst thing he has done. And even if they botch her, chances are I'm still more upset about Azog and short beards.

The interesting point about the Bechdal test is that it is not based on personal preference or opinion. It examines how characters relate to each other in specific terms, the topic of their conversations.
Yes - and it doesn't work to determine a film's feminism value, but rather it brings attention to how underrepresented women are. Try to think of a popular book/film that does NOT have two male characters, who talk to each other, about something besides a woman.

Took you long, didn't it?

Melian is more consistent and I like her trait of singing but even there I am bothered by the concept of her "girdle"
I'm bothered by her taste in men.

While Elf women could and did fight in defence having a woman shoehorned in as a military leader is hugely patronising as well as uncanonical. Women do not have to bear arms to equal men.
I understand it in an adventure film where bearing arms is what all the protagonists do. She'd hardly be 'equal' to the adventurers, or a relevant part of their story, if she didn't do the same.

You're right about Weta doing a better job with the first trilogy. How many of you have seen Disney sequels? That's exactly what springs to mind when comparing the visual styles of the two trilogies with each other.

[Morthoron]

I do seriously look forward to the clip from DOS with Bilbo on water-skis, jumping over a shark.

I believe he will be jumping Sharkey, not shark. Filmed in Wetwang, of course.

[Nerwen]

And she looks dreadful.... the work of Weta and the costumes were one of the things I actively enjoyed from the first films - Evangeline Lilly, who is unquestionably a beautiful woman, looks as if she is in fancy dress for a convention with the bad henna dye job and the jokeshop ears.
No, she didn’t exactly get the most inspired character design. It honestly looks like someone just googled “Elf warrior” and based it on the first few pics that showed up.

(Or did look like that– link seems to be broken now.)

[Nerwen]

Still, PJ is going to make uncanonical changes, and although the quality of the story he tells isn't even close to Tolkien, some changes are better and some worse than others. I can't tell which Tauriel is before I've seen her, but as a rule, making an additional character woman is far from the worst thing he has done. And even if they botch her, chances are I'm still more upset about Azog and short beards.
On the whole I agree with this– however, now that we’ve seen the character, well, she does look like a distillation of every Elf-Mary Sue ever, doesn’t she?

That said, I could certainly do without this thread turning into another of those OMG a WOMAN in THE HOBBIT??? EWWW!!! GIRLGERMS!!!111!!!! affairs. :rolleyes:

[Bêthberry]

I meant that that scene seems to pass the Bechdal Test.



Tolkien hits it with Melian and Galadriel, if not in LOTR.

My bad! I misread that as a reference simply to the two characters and not to the brief descriptions of their meetings in The Silm. But let's see how the actual "scenes" do hold up.


1. It has to have at least two women in it,
2. who talk to each other,
3. about something besides a man.


Galadriel his sister went not with him to Nargothrond, for in Doriath dwelt Celeborn, kinsman of Thingol, and there was great love between them. Therefore she remained in the Hidden Kingdom, and abode with Melian, and of her learned great lore and wisdom concerning Middle-earth.

This does not satisfy the test, to my mind, for several reasons. First of all, we do not have a real scene with conversation or dialogue between the two women. We have a report of their relationship. Thus, their relationship is filtered by the narrator. Second, the passage highlights Galadriel's reason for staying in Doriath--the great love between her and Celeborn. Nor is there much characterisation of the two women. So, nope, this episode does not pass the test. ;)


And at times Melian and Galadriel would speak together of Valinor and the bliss of of old; but beyond the dark hour of the death of the Trees Galadriel would not go, but ever fell silent. And on a time Melian said, " There is some woe that lies upon you and your kin. That I can see in you, but all else is hidden from me; for by no vision or thought can I perceive anything that passed or passes in the West: a shadow lies over all the land of Aman, and reaches far out over the sea. Why will you not tell me more?"
"For that woe is past," said Galadriel; "and I would take what joy is here left, untrubled by memory. And maybe there is woe enough yet to come, though still hope may seem bright."
Then Melian looked in her eyes, and said: "I believe not that the Noldor came forth as messengers of the Valar, as was said at first: not though they came in the very hour of our need. For they speak never of the Valar, nor have their high lords brought any message to Thingol, whether from Manwe, or Ulmo, or even from Olwe the King's brother, and his own folk went over the sea. For what cause, Galadriel, were the high people of the Noldor driven forth as exiles from Aman? Or what evil lies on the sons of Feanor that they are so haughty and so fell? Do I not strike near the truth?"
"Near," said Galadriel; "save that we were not driven forth, but came of our own will, and against that of the Valar. And through great peril and in despite of the Valar for this purpose we came to take vengeance upon Morgoth, and regain what he stole."
Then Galadriel spoke to Melian of the Silmarils, and of the slaying of King Finwe at Formenos; but still she said no word of the Oath, nor of the Kinslaying, nor of the burning of the ships at Losgar. But Melian said: "Now much you tell me, and yet more I perceive. A darkness you would cast over the long road from Tirion, but I see evil there, which Thingol should learn for his guidance."
"Maybe," said Galadriel; "but not of me."
And Melian then spoke no more of these matters with Galadriel; but she told King Thingol all that she had heard of the Silmarils.

Now this seems closer to the test! We have a bit of conversation between the women, even if it falls into report about the Silmarils. We can gather a bit more of motivation or characterisation here as well, with Galadriel's reticence to speak all and Melian's subtle prompting.

Does this present the scene I had spoken of, >>>Now, if The Silm had given us an extended passage where the two--Galadriel and Melian--discuss the fate of the world, that would have been something which would have demonstrated their intellect and wisdom. But we don't get that. Mostly we are told of their wise decisions or thought rather than seeing how they negotiate the correct stance.<<< ?

Well, yes, it does appear that Melian learns something significant from this conversation. Yet can we say that essentially Melian's role is to be almost Thingol's spy here? She reports it to Thingol, so that the entire conversation serves Thingol's needs, precedes the report of a spreading rumour about the Noldor, and in fact antagonises the King against the visiting Finrod. The events in the chapter become an explanation for the decline of one language and the supremacy of another. The women are small potatoes in that, no matter how ironic their role in the events may be.

And of these effects neither Galadriel nor Melian have any control. They are passive conveyors of details rather than characters with full agency. They are women negotiating their position within the patriarchy and as such I think that is a kind of representation. But they are still discussing men--the haughty and fell nature of the sons of Feanor and Thingol's need for guidance.

This is indeed far closer than anything in LotR or TH, but the women are still passive and inadvertent bearers of story details that really are about the men in their lives. Not quite what I had in mind, but I might be too strict in my interpretation of the Test.

Didn't Galadriel maintain her "realm" in a very similar fashion, with the power of Nenya? She seemed to have had some success. Notice in each case it is the female who ultimately defends the home, despite armed might being in the hands of the males.

Yet it is a stereotypical defense and unrelated to the Bechdal Test, which, as Agan has pointed out:


and it doesn't work to determine a film's feminism value, but rather it brings attention to how underrepresented women are.

The feminist values of the representation are indeed another topic to which I must not stray, however much I dallied around them in the previous post.

Interesting. How would you characterize Melian's dealings with another mum, Morwen?

We aren't given any specific scenes of Melian's dealings with Morwen, are we? We are told that Morwen is "fey" and "distraught" and refuses the counsel of Melian but again, that is reported narrative and not an actual conversation. And it would have been about Turin anyway.; ;) There really isn't enough material to generate any kind of generalisation about how Melian treated motherhood.


Tolkien hits it with Melian and Galadriel, if not in LOTR, and to me that alone sets him above PJ's observed work in the matter.


You are right to seek in The Silm for some of Tolkien's representations of strong women; what I would have liked to have seen is Haleth leading her people in more detail, because there is a woman who is sole leader, no consort. However, we do have to remember that PJ has but LotR and TH to work with. I don't think he has access to The Silm, so that all he has to work with are the fewer representations in LotR and TH; I'm not sure how much of the Appendices he can touch at length.

Would that be an overreaction on the part of PJ, akin to warrior-princess Arwen? As in the only way to show power in a woman is physical demonstrations?

I like Agan's reply to Mithalwen about power in protagonists in an action flick. But I also think it was a mistake to change Arwen's character. Personally, I also think PJ likes to go with the big boom, as that is a large part , if not the main part, of action flicks, which are as much an influence on his film-making as Tolkien, if not more.

Is PJ really subtle enough for that to be the case?

I don't think it's really a joke.

lol, But he does favour fairly rank forms of humour in inappropriate places.


I'm bothered by her taste in men.

Oh, no question!


I do mind her being a woman or at least having a woman imposed on a book character - though from the barrel scenes and the casting we have clearly lost my favourite scene of Galion getting sozzled with the captain of the guard.

Now that we shall have to wait to see. Would PJ dare show a Marion Ravenwood?

And I do believe this is the longest post I've made in ever so long.

[THE Ka]

I do mind her being a woman or at least having a woman imposed on a book character - though from the barrel scenes and the casting we have clearly lost my favourite scene of Galion getting sozzled with the captain of the guard.

That was probably the most memorable scene I kept in mind while reading LOTR later on, that elves aren't always this ethereal fluff of melancholy hanging in the air of every event, scene, etc.
Really rather sad.

Yes - and it doesn't work to determine a film's feminism value, but rather it brings attention to how underrepresented women are. Try to think of a popular book/film that does NOT have two male characters, who talk to each other, about something besides a woman.

Took you long, didn't it?

I doubt works such as The Mists of Avalon could even pass the Bechtel test in it's entirety. Certainly certain chapters, but not every little thing. If anything it was a Bechtel test of its own source material, thought provoking though.


Didn't Galadriel maintain her "realm" in a very similar fashion, with the power of Nenya? She seemed to have had some success. Notice in each case it is the female who ultimately defends the home, despite armed might being in the hands of the males.

The remaining exception of all of these examples, with someone taking a bit more than just a defense interest in the home would be Haleth. Probably the only figure of the feminine persuasion who isn't just 'guarding the home' for someone, or who eventually 'stops playing at war chief' and settles down.

... Though I highly doubt Tauriel is going to be as in Tolkien's words: "a renowned amazon with a picked bodyguard of women" (The Peoples of Middle Earth). Also, if anyone remembers from the 'sneak peak' preview on The Hobbit website where of all people Stephen Colbert points out the difference between Thranduil & family from the rest of the elves in his society, PJ makes a quip about Tauriel being among those who did not heed the call west. Apparently she's some sort of device to familiarize the audience with the stratification of elven society (aka: 'one of these elves is not like the other-').

To be honest and nothing against the wishful thinking of other female fans, I see Tauriel as a plot device to do two major things:

- Familiarize fans who may not have read too deep into the different branches of elven society (as since most highly recognizable elven characters in the film are high elves of some sort)
- Serve as a device to bust the dwarves out of prison, since apparently our merry drunken duo and most of Bilbo's crafty reconnaissance and stealth have been dropped out of the film.

It's always a good thing to remember that in homages and recreations of works where a female figure has been inserted for appeasement purposes or else, it can still be pandering and sexist (maybe even more so) than if no character had been added to the original material. Mostly because, in the often wrong hands, such a character comes off as just 'eye candy', 'comedic', 'one dimensional' and/or 'useless'. It just ends up being heaped upon the burn pile of 'ugh, not another fan-service to feminism' for those who tend to think us females rattle our sabers over nothing.

[Nerwen]

This is indeed far closer than anything in LotR or TH, but the women are still passive and inadvertent bearers of story details that really are about the men in their lives. Not quite what I had in mind, but I might be too strict in my interpretation of the Test.
Actually, Beth, I rather think you are a bit– or rather, perhaps, not strict enough– I doubt “talking about a man” was meant to be stretched that far. After all, it tremendously limits the topics women are “allowed” to discuss– which was surely not the original intention. (Besides, isn’t the point of the test pretty much that it *shouldn’t* be terribly hard to pass?)

On the other hand–

Originally Posted by Mithalwen
While Elf women could and did fight in defence having a woman shoehorned in as a military leader is hugely patronising as well as uncanonical. Women do not have to bear arms to equal men.
I understand it in an adventure film where bearing arms is what all the protagonists do. She'd hardly be 'equal' to the adventurers, or a relevant part of their story, if she didn't do the same.
Indeed. No offence to Mith or Zil or anyone else, but I’ve often heard this “why can’t they show true, feminine strength” argument in relation to action/adventure heroines, and it sounds fine until you ask yourself what, in practical terms, the lady is then meant to *do* in the story.

See, one hears a lot about the “the need for strong female characters”, but obviously it’s a bit more complicated than that when, even in such a small group, we can’t seem to reach any real agreement about what the phrase means in the first place. (I also find it to be of some concern how restrictive the various criteria are– male characters are always given a lot more leeway.) For my part I’d be reasonably satisfied if this Tauriel’s portrayal doesn’t turn out downright embarrassing– and I think that has more to do with issues other than such relatively abstract ones. Will she get any real characterisation at all, or just be a cardboard cutout? Will she spout allegedly hilarious one-liners? Will her scenes feature endless cheesecake shots? Will we be subjected to the threatened Elf/Dwarf romance?

...Will she *really* look this silly? (“Hmmn... looks like the Costume Department's already over-budget, so we’ll just hire an elf-ranger outfit from Partyland down the road. I’m sure no-one’ll notice...")

[Inziladun]

Meh, I probably shouldn't even be posting here, as I haven't seen AUJ, and I have no plans to watch DOS.

I'll just leave off by saying that if Tolkien fails in his presentation of what one perceives as a "strong" female character, I am not at all confident that the movies, geared as they are toward mass modern audience appeal, will accomplish that better.

[Mithalwen]

Are male characters only strong if they bear arms? Why not have a woman ruler of Laketown? Surely because she would be older and morally ambiguous and wouldn't be hawt enough for the desired demographic. Don't be under any illusion that Tauriel is there for the girls. If there had been a genuine place for a female role model the role wouldn't have changed with the availability of the actress.

I don't get the problem with the Girdle of Melian. We aren't talking about Spanx. If you take the verb formof gird it has rather more positive associations with Knighthood which incidentally I think the gifts in Lorien to Boromir and the younger hobbits are more significant than they may fiirst appear (I am very slowly writing a paper on this so I will spare you further ramblings). Idrll is perhaps the one female character who is unreservedly admirable and it is her wisdom and preparedness that save some of her people and without which even the valour of Glorfindel et all would have been futile.

Finally I reject the suggestion that objecting to Tauriel makes me somehow anti feminist. I care about the story not the gender of the protagonists.

[Aganzir]

On the whole I agree with this– however, now that we’ve seen the character, well, she does look like a distillation of every Elf-Mary Sue ever, doesn’t she?
She does. But I still want to see her on the screen before passing my judgment.

- Serve as a device to bust the dwarves out of prison, since apparently our merry drunken duo and most of Bilbo's crafty reconnaissance and stealth have been dropped out of the film.
This makes me sad because that's the part I had been really looking forward to. Apparently PJ doesn't have the guts to portray the elves as Tolkien did (never mind that the Hobbit can't be seen as canon in every respect). Ah why do they have to be so... first age?

Actually, Beth, I rather think you are a bit– or rather, perhaps, not strict enough– I doubt “talking about a man” was meant to be stretched that far. After all, it tremendously limits the topics women are “allowed” to discuss– which was surely not the original intention. (Besides, isn’t the point of the test pretty much that it *shouldn’t* be terribly hard to pass?)
There are different versions, but I don't think B-berry's (I should probably stop using this acronym because I pronounce it 'Bieberry' in my head) interpretation was off. Of course women can talk about men, but since the male characters don't only talk about women either, it would be justified to show women speaking of something that adds something to them as characters instead of to the male characters.

See, one hears a lot about the “the need for strong female characters”, but obviously it’s a bit more complicated than that when, even in such a small group, we can’t seem to reach any real agreement about what the phrase means in the first place.
Oh but Peter Jackson and his wonderful sense of nuances have already defined it to us! In his world, strong = physically strong and able.

Don't be under any illusion that Tauriel is there for the girls. If there had been a genuine place for a female role model the role wouldn't have changed with the availability of the actress.
Ditto.

[Nerwen]

There are different versions, but I don't think B-berry's (I should probably stop using this acronym because I pronounce it 'Bieberry' in my head) interpretation was off. Of course women can talk about men, but since the male characters don't only talk about women either, it would be justified to show women speaking of something that adds something to them as characters instead of to the male characters.
But I think there is a difference between “talking about men” and “talking about a series of events in which men were involved”.

Finally I reject the suggestion that objecting to Tauriel makes me somehow anti feminist. I care about the story not the gender of the protagonists.
Well, I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that, Mith. However, I do think there has been an overreaction to the mere fact of this character's being a girlie– which doesn’t, in itself, break the universe as far as I’m concerned. Neither does her bearing arms, in my opinion– of course it’s not the only way for a woman to be “strong”, but it’s a way, isn’t it? What I think matters anyway isn’t how closely a female character fits any given viewer’s or reader's ideal (feminist or otherwise) but how well-written and portrayed she is– and *that’s* where I fear it’s all going to come unstuck.

Hmmn. Seems I’ve got myself out on a limb here. Ah well.

[Bêthberry]

I don't get the problem with the Girdle of Melian. We aren't talking about Spanx. If you take the verb formof gird it has rather more positive associations with Knighthood which incidentally I think the gifts in Lorien to Boromir and the younger hobbits are more significant than they may fiirst appear (I am very slowly writing a paper on this so I will spare you further ramblings).

Oh, it's not the 'girdle' that bothers me; nor it's reference to a woman. I know Tolkien well enough to understand that he often was recovering an early meaning of word almost lost and he cared little if it required educating readers about the lost meaning. And we've all had our fun following Aragon, Legolas and Eomer in the van. And I know what 'gird up one's loins' means.

I have a philosophical objection to the idea that one can barricade or wall oneself in from danger or evil. I know this was well the case with many medieval walled cities and indeed with many 'gated' communities in the US these days. I believe that action simply exacerbates the social problems. The moment we claim some places are bad, we also fall prey to treating everyone there as bad and start expecting trouble. And vice versa, everyone in a good place as good. It's not a concept that resolves the difficulties but which makes rapproachment more difficult. So it is hard for me to see this as a positive activity and to regard the character who does it as a champion. There is in LotR--well, I think so, anyway--some suggestion that Galadriel's attempt to hold back time in Lorien was a mistake.

Idrll is perhaps the one female character who is unreservedly admirable and it is her wisdom and preparedness that save some of her people and without which even the valour of Glorfindel et all would have been futile.

Indeed, she does have the foresight to build a way out of the enclosed city, which makes an intriguing contrast with Galadriel and Melian, but the actual building of it and escape through it is little dwelt upon. It's there and a salvation, but it is almost little more than a plot device. She is also largely represented as a possession and one of the motivations for Maeglin's malice and betrayal. Her character is admirable but her role in the narrative, grand as it is, is ultimately driven by men's attitude towards her: she cannot stop Maeglin, only escape from him. Maybe that's all the agency most women have ever had in history. I really wish we heard more from her. And perhaps this is one of the problems with discussing the Silm: it is not truly a novel with characterisation explored through dialogue, so how are we to evaluate the characters who are not thoroughly represented as characters are in realistic novels.


Actually, Beth, I rather think you are a bit– or rather, perhaps, not strict enough– I doubt “talking about a man” was meant to be stretched that far. After all, it tremendously limits the topics women are “allowed” to discuss– which was surely not the original intention. (Besides, isn’t the point of the test pretty much that it *shouldn’t* be terribly hard to pass?)


There are different versions, but I don't think B-berry's (I should probably stop using this acronym because I pronounce it 'Bieberry' in my head) interpretation was off. Of course women can talk about men, but since the male characters don't only talk about women either, it would be justified to show women speaking of something that adds something to them as characters instead of to the male characters.

Oh, I hope that doesn't make me as yummy as a berry pie. ;)

Yes, that's what I meant. The conversation is more a plot device that an expose or exploration of their characters.


I'll just leave off by saying that if Tolkien fails in his presentation of what one perceives as a "strong" female character, I am not at all confident that the movies, geared as they are toward mass modern audience appeal, will accomplish that better.

Aye, there's the rub. I happen to think that Ioreth is one of Tolkien's most intriguing female characters and as best as I can recall there's nary a sign of her in PJ's RotK.

[Mithalwen]

But it has been implied that it is the only way that a woman can be strong inthis film. I don't have a problem with female warriors per se and I certainly haven'T conformed to them in my own life (am I a strong woman because I played rugby but a weak one because I embroider and knit?). But i had the blessing to be born at about the first moment n time when having two x chromosomes wasn't such a limiting factor though I was born a little to soon to be able to realise my unlikeliy childhood ambition of being a RAF pilot and it is still unusu for women to chose frontline military roles. My Naval cousin observed that the women in his cohort at Dartmouth chose logistics not Warfare. Female warriors are not a usual part of Tolkien's universe and unless Tauriel is somme Jeanne dArc type figure it makes little sense for there to be a female captain if there are no women in the rank and file. I just think it ts the worst kind of facile tokenism and as such insulting to women.Makes about as much sense as having the Tom Hanks character in Saving Private Ryan played by a woman. Maybe PJ is salving some lingering resentment that he never worked on Xena. Dunno but I don't see how this character will be an improvement. If they were serious about it there would have been no need for a recreation when Ronan was unavailable. Too many changes seem to have been made to accommodate Jackson's pet actors for me to have an iota of faith that there is any real vision or integrity. It just seems to be pure self indulgence and the lack of female characters in the original a convenient but unconvincing excuse.

[Mithalwen]

We do not hear enough of Idril but she is far more proactive than any other woman. and can manage Daddy so she marries the lover of her choice AND is the only woman that does anything altruistic the only one who shows any leadeship and awareness of the wider context rather than forcing others into danger by wilful behaviour. Unlike certain others who we never hear the end of who are essentially only motivated by self interest.

[Formendacil]

I have a philosophical objection to the idea that one can barricade or wall oneself in from danger or evil. I know this was well the case with many medieval walled cities and indeed with many 'gated' communities in the US these days. I believe that action simply exacerbates the social problems. The moment we claim some places are bad, we also fall prey to treating everyone there as bad and start expecting trouble. And vice versa, everyone in a good place as good. It's not a concept that resolves the difficulties but which makes rapproachment more difficult. So it is hard for me to see this as a positive activity and to regard the character who does it as a champion. There is in LotR--well, I think so, anyway--some suggestion that Galadriel's attempt to hold back time in Lorien was a mistake.

I think you're right earlier in the thread when you say you suspect that Tolkien had the same objection--virtually every one of his "gated communities" fails spectacularly: Nargothrond, Gondolin, and Doriath rather obviously; and you've mentioned how Tolkien censures Lorien and Rivendell as proceeding from the wrong ambitions--and thus the Elves failed. Likewise, with Gondor: Gandalf criticises Denethor's strategy of remaining behind guarded walls and it is only when Gondor marches out of itself to the Morannon that it can truly be said to contribute positively to the salvation of Middle-earth. Even Valinor, though it never falls in its isolation, fails from it.

Also, a brief hiccup of a thought:

...she cannot stop Maeglin, only escape from him.

Substitute a couple characters and you get:

...they [all good folk] cannot stop Morgoth, only escape from him, which reads rather like the entire Silmarillion in microcosm--though Túrin's story, at least, suggest that the flight is ultimately impossible (and Gandalf says as much about the recurring waves of evil).

And this makes me think about the chief contrast between Idril and Lúthien--or is it their point of convergence?--namely that she does the complete opposite of her mother: where Melian guards against Morgoth, she goes on the attack. Not, obviously, in a military manner, but certainly in a proactive one.

[Galadriel55]

I've also heard rumours about
Tauriel and Legolas having something going on
Tauriel having a crush on Thranduil
Tauriel saving the dwarves from Thranduil's dungeon
No idea how reliable these are, but cheer up - they all can't be true!

No idea if you meant that sarcastically or not, but I certainly think they can... :rolleyes::eek:

[Mithalwen]

Melian at least protects her people her selfish daughter sits in a tree until it is in her own interest to get off her backside. Her proactivity is merely to satisfy her own desires and gets Felagund killed. I despise her and we hates her forever! Precioussesss

[Mithalwen]

So straw poll...does Tauriel look more like Peter Pan, Robin Hood or....?

[Galadriel55]

Firstly, for all you Betchal testers - what think ye of Morwen and Nienor and the "generation war for independence"? ;)

It's always a good thing to remember that in homages and recreations of works where a female figure has been inserted for appeasement purposes or else, it can still be pandering and sexist (maybe even more so) than if no character had been added to the original material. Mostly because, in the often wrong hands, such a character comes off as just 'eye candy', 'comedic', 'one dimensional' and/or 'useless'. It just ends up being heaped upon the burn pile of 'ugh, not another fan-service to feminism' for those who tend to think us females rattle our sabers over nothing.

That's quite true. I think also that putting a woman in the plot just for the sake of having a woman in the plot is making things worse, because it has the overtone of "the only reason she's there is to make you happy. See? Happy?" No, not happy. It's too obvious. I am not against feminism, but I dislike over-the-top demonstrations of the phenomenon (Agan will now for sure beat me with a banana when we meet in the indefinite future :p). I easily agree with the phrase "why are women worse then men?", but have you ever thought of the opposite - "why are men worse than women?"? Male elves aren't good enough for PJ&co, it seems. Even disregarding the first point, it's one thing to plop a new female character in. It's another thing to have that character take over the job/scenes that were originally meant for male characters - characters that are no worse than hers, may I add.

There could be strong female characters even if the Bechdal test is not satisfied (and by strong I mean both a strong character and a strong impression on the reader/viewer). The classic Love Story movie is an example. Jennifer is, to my memory, the only female character who even appears on screen for any considerable length, and she doesn't even do anything spectacular, yet she's a strong person in all the meanings of the word. Lately, though, in many cases women who are presented as "female Harry Potters", for lack of a better term - noble, brave, overcoming unfairness, fighting, etc - end up becoming rather weak-charactered Mary Sues. You don't need a bow in your hand to be a strong character. Giving a bow to a person who has a weak character and/or impression makes it look like one of the over-the-top demonstrations of feminism which quickly turn into something akin to REB.

My concluding thought: Either have a character who will leave the reader/viewer with a strong impression - a deep character, of any gender - or don't disgrace yourself with a shallow desperate fighter character of any gender.

And, by the way - even with Tauriel TH movie still doesn't pass the Bechdal test, so what's the argument about?... :p

Yes - and it doesn't work to determine a film's feminism value, but rather it brings attention to how underrepresented women are. Try to think of a popular book/film that does NOT have two male characters, who talk to each other, about something besides a woman.

One of my favourite books (in Russian) nearly meets your inverted Bechdal test. In the first chapter a military commander in charge of a rural area asks a higher-ranked commander for a troop of men who wouldn't get drunk every single night. And so the second man sends him a troop of women. The main idea of the story, though, is the opposite of what you would call feminist; actually, if you think about it, it has nothing to do with feminism or otherwise at all. The only male character reflects constantly on what a war could do - that these girls were not meant to carry rifles. It's bad enough that men kill each other; it is ten times worse that girls risk their lives.

However, I do think there has been an overreaction to the mere fact of this character's being a girlie– which doesn’t, in itself, break the universe as far as I’m concerned. Neither does her bearing arms, in my opinion– of course it’s not the only way for a woman to be “strong”, but it’s a way, isn’t it? What I think matters anyway isn’t how closely a female character fits any given viewer’s or reader's ideal (feminist or otherwise) but how well-written and portrayed she is– and *that’s* where I fear it’s all going to come unstuck.

Hmmn. Seems I’ve got myself out on a limb here. Ah well.

Actually, I think you have a very valid point. I mean, as I said before, one of my most favourite books has fighter females. But if she's going to be portrayed as just a kick-butt fighter... You're entirely right. It's all about the writing and portrayal.

And this makes me think about the chief contrast between Idril and Lúthien--or is it their point of convergence?--namely that she does the complete opposite of her mother: where Melian guards against Morgoth, she goes on the attack. Not, obviously, in a military manner, but certainly in a proactive one.

Melian at least protects her people her selfish daughter sits in a tree until it is in her own interest to get of her backside. Her proactivity is merely to satisfy her own desires and gets Felagund killed. I despise her and we hates her forever! Precioussesss

I have to say that Luthien is not one of my favourites, but I have to disagree slightly with this. Yes, she does not fight Morgoth because it is right to fight him, she does it to get Beren. But I wouldn't really blame her for sitting safe and snug and happy in Doriath while others are fighting. With the same effect one could quote Boromir on indirectly accusing the hobbits and other western folk of sitting idle while Gondor's forces are being exhausted. Aragorn's rebuttal to that is that the whole reason for the fighting is to ensure that somewhere folk can live in peace and be happy. So the whole point of a "safe Doriath" is so that within the Girdle people could live in peace and sing and dance all they want.

[Inziladun]

So straw poll...does Tauriel look more like Peter Pan, Robin Hood or....?

....this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot_Top) under the influence of hair-straightener? :D

*Only kidding, Ms. Lilly.

[Galadriel55]

So straw poll...does Tauriel look more like Peter Pan, Robin Hood or....?

:D:D My gosh, that's amazing! It's a shame I can't rep you for this.

And here's the picture again since the original link isn't working:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/49/EvangelineLillyAsTauriel.jpg/220px-EvangelineLillyAsTauriel.jpg

The longer I look at it, the more inspiring Mith's words become. Someone smack me on the head. Now.

Edit: xed with Zil. That's a good one!

[Mithalwen]

I have now got Robin Hood riding through the glen as a ear worm. But she looks like the principal boy in a Vulcan pantomime. For those not familiar with the tradition the juvenile male lead is traditionally played b a woman and the lead older female role , the Dame, by a man

It is bit sad if production values have sunk so low. Gil.galad was on screen for abou three seconds and his costume was gorgeous. ztauriel is being given a starring role and she looks like .well THAT...

[Kitanna]

So straw poll...does Tauriel look more like Peter Pan, Robin Hood or....?

She looks like Brave's Merida and Katniss Everdeen had a Vulcan baby.

My concluding thought: Either have a character who will leave the reader/viewer with a strong impression - a deep character, of any gender - or don't disgrace yourself with a shallow desperate fighter character of any gender.
I agree. The Hobbit has a lot of dwarves to keep track of as it is. And from watching the first movie none of them really left an impression. Some of the acting was excellent, but mostly everything was just meh. I doubt see Tauriel bringing much to the game aside from being a red haired female Legolas, but I'll decide upon watching the movie.

I've seen a lot of female characters thrown into books, video games, and films/TV just to have one because one was previously lacking. They tend to be cold, skilled fighters, and just in need of a hug. If this elf-lady addition falls into that and serves the purpose of just being female then she's better left out.

[THE Ka]

So straw poll...does Tauriel look more like Peter Pan, Robin Hood or....?

I'm convinced its somewhere between Peter Pan and a bad cosplay of Link, as much as I love Link costumes...

I am not against feminism, but I dislike over-the-top demonstrations of the phenomenon (Agan will now for sure beat me with a banana when we meet in the indefinite future ). I easily agree with the phrase "why are women worse then men?", but have you ever thought of the opposite - "why are men worse than women?"? Male elves aren't good enough for PJ&co, it seems. Even disregarding the first point, it's one thing to plop a new female character in. It's another thing to have that character take over the job/scenes that were originally meant for male characters - characters that are no worse than hers, may I add.

My concluding thought: Either have a character who will leave the reader/viewer with a strong impression - a deep character, of any gender - or don't disgrace yourself with a shallow desperate fighter character of any gender.

Neither am I, but instead prefer to have my actions weigh more than just sitting around discussing gender obstacles. Of course, it's pretty hard to call someone out for being 'one of those darn feminists' when they're shoveling a water pipe out with you in the rain and snow. ;) All in all, I prefer to address feminist issues in life as more of a Maege Mormont.

It's always better to have well developed characters who can stand on their own beyond more than flesh and looks, because they have personalities and character that are admirable by both men and women. The Hobbit is by far one of my favourite books, and is primarily full of a bunch of men on a long, witty and adventurous camping trip (for lack of trying to be funny about this...), with some of Tolkien's more memorable characters (Beorn has gotten better since childhood, when you can truly appreciate his blunt crankiness and sarcasm).

[Nerwen]

And, by the way - even with Tauriel TH movie still doesn't pass the Bechdal test, so what's the argument about?...
Well, when you put it that way... um... I have no idea, actually. :confused::D Unless Arwen or Galadriel decide to pay a visit to Mirkwood, or there’s another new “she-elf” we haven’t heard about yet, or something... (And seriously, I agree the test shouldn’t be treated as a pass-or-fail for individual characters anyway– I don’t think that was supposed to be the point of it.)

Lately, though, in many cases women who are presented as "female Harry Potters", for lack of a better term - noble, brave, overcoming unfairness, fighting, etc - end up becoming rather weak-charactered Mary Sues. You don't need a bow in your hand to be a strong character. Giving a bow to a person who has a weak character and/or impression makes it look like one of the over-the-top demonstrations of feminism which quickly turn into something akin to REB.

My concluding thought: Either have a character who will leave the reader/viewer with a strong impression - a deep character, of any gender - or don't disgrace yourself with a shallow desperate fighter character of any gender.

I've seen a lot of female characters thrown into books, video games, and films/TV just to have one because one was previously lacking. They tend to be cold, skilled fighters, and just in need of a hug. If this elf-lady addition falls into that and serves the purpose of just being female then she's better left out.

Well, this all goes back to what I was saying before. It seems to me that, for whatever reason (under-representation, maybe?) female characters, I think particularly in SF, tend to be seen as Woman rather than women, and therefore have a quite different set of demands made of them from that made of male characters. You often get the impression that writers ask themselves not “is this character in any way likeable, interesting or even believable?”, but “can she be passed off as an Ideal Female Role Model (while remaining palatable to the male audience)"?

Okay. That’s one aspect... but this thread demonstrates another. Would everybody be carrying on nearly so much at the addition of “a shallow desperate fighter” who was a male? (Note that technically the “shallowness” is still an assumption, though probably a safe one.)

Oh, and I vote “Peter Pan”. Shouldn't we have a formal poll for this?

[Mithalwen]

Maybe if he were the sole representative of his discriminated against group ~ oneparent family. ethnic minority. disabled. gay whales as the catch all phrase used to be.

Alas I don't have the authority to start a poll but if anyone else does I would be delighted. Love the alternative suggestions....

[Morthoron]

As an elven guard, I wonder if Evangeline Lilly's password is "A Locksley"? No wait, that was Olivia DeHavilland.

And what's with Tauriel's hair? I've seen better dye jobs on Courtney Love when she played with Hole. And I can't stand Courtney Love.

I'm sorry, but creating characters where they don't belong, by a director and scriptwriter who is a notorious failure at deviating from an original story line, is the height of hubris, and stinks to heaven of high-handed Hollywoodish scripting for marketing demographics. Thank the Lord Sir David Lean did not create a female Bedouin love interest for Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia.

[Galadriel55]

Well, this all goes back to what I was saying before. It seems to me that, for whatever reason (under-representation, maybe?) female characters, I think particularly in SF, tend to be seen as Woman rather than women, and therefore have a quite different set of demands made of them from that made of male characters. You often get the impression that writers ask themselves not “is this character in any way likeable, interesting or even believable?”, but “can she be passed off as an Ideal Female Role Model (while remaining palatable to the male audience)"?

Right. I guess that while many can stomach a Tauriel, the bigger issue seems to be TauriElle.

Okay. That’s one aspect... but this thread demonstrates another. Would everybody be carrying on nearly so much at the addition of “a shallow desperate fighter” who was a male? (Note that technically the “shallowness” is still an assumption, though probably a safe one.)

Hmmm... I don't suppose so. Because there's three points against Taurielle - the addition, the shallowness, and the Elle. The first two points could apply to a male as well, but the third is there only because it's just waaay too overly un-sexist, to the point that it makes one even more conscious of that aspect. I already ranted about that one, so I won't repeat it.

[Bêthberry]

This has been quite fun. It's been a long time since I've seen a thread move so quickly and inspire so many Downers' responses.

I think you're right earlier in the thread when you say you suspect that Tolkien had the same objection--virtually every one of his "gated communities" fails spectacularly: Nargothrond, Gondolin, and Doriath rather obviously; and you've mentioned how Tolkien censures Lorien and Rivendell as proceeding from the wrong ambitions--and thus the Elves failed. Likewise, with Gondor: Gandalf criticises Denethor's strategy of remaining behind guarded walls and it is only when Gondor marches out of itself to the Morannon that it can truly be said to contribute positively to the salvation of Middle-earth. Even Valinor, though it never falls in its isolation, fails from it.

thanks for all the other examples! Interesting that he made the immortals so uncomfortable with change. It's actually one of the main reasons I'm personally not so keen on the high elves. For all their love of music and the fine arts, they are rather self-involved.

Also, a brief hiccup of a thought:

Substitute a couple characters and you get:

...they [all good folk] cannot stop Morgoth, only escape from him, which reads rather like the entire Silmarillion in microcosm--though Túrin's story, at least, suggest that the flight is ultimately impossible (and Gandalf says as much about the recurring waves of evil).

lol, perhaps I should have said she does not confront him. But perhaps that's the situation of a woman in her culture.

And this makes me think about the chief contrast between Idril and Lúthien--or is it their point of convergence?--namely that she does the complete opposite of her mother: where Melian guards against Morgoth, she goes on the attack. Not, obviously, in a military manner, but certainly in a proactive one.

I come back again to the point that much of what we know of Idril is reported to us; we have hardly any dialogue between her and other characters. It might be interesting to posit why Tolkien presented her this way and gave more narrative development to others.


But I think there is a difference between “talking about men” and “talking about a series of events in which men were involved”.


True, and as Agan has pointed out the Bechdel Test is not a standard for feminist depiction but for representation or gender bias and I do find myself falling into looking at the characteristics of the depiction. It is true that Melian uses the conversation--or perhaps I should say Tolkien uses it--to elicit information that is needed for Thingol's motivation.


It seems to me that, for whatever reason (under-representation, maybe?) female characters, I think particularly in SF, tend to be seen as Woman rather than women, and therefore have a quite different set of demands made of them from that made of male characters. You often get the impression that writers ask themselves not “is this character in any way likeable, interesting or even believable?”, but “can she be passed off as an Ideal Female Role Model (while remaining palatable to the male audience)"?

I think that's a valid generalisation. Not particularly relevant here, but I've always been intrigued by Asimov's Susan Calvin and her role in the creation of the robots, because of the studiously cold manner he gives her and the events of the short story "Liar". Asimov was clearly wanting to show a capable woman in a positive, intellectual light, but fell pray to using romance as a plot device.


I'm sorry, but creating characters where they don't belong, by a director and scriptwriter who is a notorious failure at deviating from an original story line, is the height of hubris, and stinks to heaven of high-handed Hollywoodish scripting for marketing demographics. Thank the Lord Sir David Lean did not create a female Bedouin love interest for Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia.

Well, we all know why Lean could not create a female Bedouin love interest for Lawrence. ;)

Thomas Leitch's book Film Adaptation and Its Discontents examines the many ways in which a novel can be represented on the screen. Not all of the great films are seamless transpositions. Several theorists posit a range of three or up to six different ways to frame the relationship. So a director is free to interpret his material as he sees fit. I think the great problem with Jackson is that he really isn't sure himself just what kind of adaption he is aiming for: pure transposition, analogy, or any of the other way of transtexual or intertextual relationship. He's got a bunch of other ideas mixed in there with Tolkien too.

It's not like he's Joss Whedon doing Much Ado About Nothing as a modern romance and getting it bang on while maintaining Elizabethan English.

As the responses to this thread have shown, there is also a variety within Tolkien's own work. The Hobbit was bed time story for his sons and as such has no female characters. Is it fair to imagine what it would be if he had included his daughter in his immediate audience? I would argue yes, particularly in the hands of a good artist. But that isn't Jackson's MO.

Lord of the Rings provides more gender variety and The Silmarillion even more (despite my own personal disappointments with many of the characters). An interesting question might be to ask why that difference exists in Tolkien's representation of woman.

[Kuruharan]

I come back again to the point that much of what we know of Idril is reported to us; we have hardly any dialogue between her and other characters. It might be interesting to posit why Tolkien presented her this way and gave more narrative development to others.

Perhaps he never had an opportunity to flesh it out. It is part of his "unfinished, published posthumously" work.

[Nerwen]

I'm sorry, but creating characters where they don't belong, by a director and scriptwriter who is a notorious failure at deviating from an original story line, is the height of hubris, and stinks to heaven of high-handed Hollywoodish scripting for marketing demographics. Thank the Lord Sir David Lean did not create a female Bedouin love interest for Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia.
Ah, but think of all the other things he didn’t do either... here we are dealing with a story that’s being violently shoved into the Standard Hollywood Blockbuster Template anyway, so what difference does one extra character make, really?

[Aganzir]

I am not against feminism, but I dislike over-the-top demonstrations of the phenomenon (Agan will now for sure beat me with a banana when we meet in the indefinite future :p)
Heck, I am an outrageous over the top demonstration of everything I am, including feminism, and I will only beat you with a banana if you don't like me because of it. :p

Still, I doubt Tauriel was written from a feminist perspective entirely. I feel Mith is right when she says Tauriel isn't there for the girls. Us women, we have got used to relating to male characters because women aren't available - that's not the problem. But can straight men watch a film without a hot heroine to entertain romantic thoughts about? The movie industry thinks not.

Again, I'm unwilling to pass judgment yet, but if Tauriel, who is 'slightly reckless and totally ruthless and doesn’t hesitate to kill (http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/06/05/evangeline-lilly-hobbit-desolation-of-smaug/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+entertainmentweekly%2Flatest+ %28Entertainment+Weekly%3A++Today%27s+Latest%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)' only has a harsh exterior, and all it takes to warm her up and help her solve those dassy issues is a whiff of testosterone, you will know she wasn't there for the ladies.

Would everybody be carrying on nearly so much at the addition of “a shallow desperate fighter” who was a male? (Note that technically the “shallowness” is still an assumption, though probably a safe one.)
I don't think there was much of a fuss about Figwit, or Lindir if you prefer, even though it wasn't exactly necessary for him to have a name or lines. We don't complain (much) about Lurtz replacing Uglúk, or any of PJ's other original characters that I just read about on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_characters_in_The_Lord_of_the_Rin gs_film_series).

While I certainly have my doubts about Tauriel, as I have pointed out, I feel a lot of the hate comes down to her being a woman. She seems off primarily because there are no women in The Hobbit, and when you're uncomfortable with something, it's easy to come up with excuses for why she's a baaaad character. Mind you, I am by no means implying anyone is misogynistic for not liking her (even if there's also evidence of that on the internet) - it's just something I feel needs saying. Especially as all we actually know about her is how she looks (also, would we be paying so much attention to a male character's looks?) and a couple of little things.

[Kuruharan]

We don't complain (much) about Lurtz replacing Uglúk

Actually, I've always been quietly upset about that one. I understand why they did it so they could have a big payoff at the end of the first movie and so Aragorn could look all cool...but I still don't like it.

Especially as all we actually know about her is how she looks (also, would we be paying so much attention to a male character's looks?) and a couple of little things.

In fairness, there was a lot of complaining about the look of the all male dwarves back when their appearance was debuted (I should know, I was doing some of it).

And, come on, her ears look terrible! :p

[Aganzir]

Actually, I've always been quietly upset about that one. I understand why they did it so they could have a big payoff at the end of the first movie and so Aragorn could look all cool...but I still don't like it.
I was more upset about Brego replacing both Hasufel and Roheryn! He was even the wrong colour. Sheesh!

In fairness, there was a lot of complaining about the look of the all male dwarves back when their appearance was debuted (I should know, I was doing some of it).

And, come on, her ears look terrible! :p
I know! I was doing it too (in real life if not on the Downs, I think that may have been one of my quieter times)! And yes, her ears and hair do look bad. Still, I've seen comments along the lines 'She's an ugly bitch and doesn't look like an elf at all', and that goes too far.

[Mithalwen]

What we know is pure Mary Sue cliche

young impetuous tick
specially gifted in this case an exceptional warrior tick
red hair tick
high in the favour of high ranking elves tick
has a romance which motivates her tick.

Do we know if she has cerulean orbs?

[Kuruharan]

Still, I've seen comments along the lines 'She's an ugly bitch and doesn't look like an elf at all', and that goes too far.

I certainly agree that personal attacks are inappropriate...however, I did say she looks like a Vulcan earlier in the thread. ;)

Of course, it kind of can't be avoided because the Vulcans are essentially space elves and the Romulans are space dark elves. There is nothing original anywhere.:rolleyes:

has a romance which motivates her tick.

Is it confirmed that she will have a thing with Kiligolas? (or is it Filigolas...even I can't keep the two of them straight).

To cross reference this (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=18397) thread, that could lead to some height-related awkward visuals.

[Bêthberry]

You know, I just saw someone on FB call a picture of this character "beautiful". (Not the picture we have here.) :eek:

Different strokes for different folks.


Perhaps he never had an opportunity to flesh it out. It is part of his "unfinished, published posthumously" work.

Possibly. I've never checked out HoMe on Idril, mainly because I'm still enjoying BoLT too much.

But the lack of time, given how much niggling he did do on the Silm, is not really an explanation. The point still remains that he did spend time on Galadriel and Melian, who have flaws, but not on Idril, who folks here would seem to assume was a very positive character. Would flaws have come to light had Tolkien developed her? Or was he more interested in the flawed characters and less in the good? After all, we have a great deal about Turin but less about Tuor.


slightly reckless and totally ruthless and doesn’t hesitate to kill'

This I am positive would not be appropriate for any of Tolkien's heroes, let along his heroines. It was Gandalf, after all, who warned Frodo against killing Gollem and showing him mercy instead. That could not be said even of the Rohirrim, with their battle ethic. And I'm darn sure Tolkien would not have put it in a bedtime story for his sons.


I will only beat you with a banana if you don't like me because of it

Ooh, careful. I've seen how swift Gal55 is with a banana in person. :D

[Kuruharan]

Or was he more interested in the flawed characters and less in the good? After all, we have a great deal about Turin but less about Tuor.

There is probably something to that.

[Mithalwen]

Lilly has said there is romance she isnt allowed to talk about

There isnt a lot of direct speech in the Silmarillion which I think it is more to do with it being written as synthetic myth as opposed to the synthetic history conceit of LOTR. Direct speech tends to be dooms and disputes. I don't see that its lack hould be a stick to beat zidril with. Er actions speak for her and even the sainted canary who has a lot more airtime speaks directly only once in the silmarillion and it is fairly banal. In UT Erendis talka a lot doesnt make her a more positive character.

[Nerwen]

I don't think there was much of a fuss about Figwit, or Lindir if you prefer, even though it wasn't exactly necessary for him to have a name or lines. We don't complain (much) about Lurtz replacing Uglúk, or any of PJ's other original characters that I just read about on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_characters_in_The_Lord_of_the_Rin gs_film_series).
I like how by far the longest and most detailed entry is for Brego the Kissing Horse...

[Mithalwen]

I ran a poll on the site I was on at the time ~ yes there was life before the Downs ~ as to whether people would rather snog Brego or Arwen....IIRC the horse got well over 90%

[THE Ka]

Again, I'm unwilling to pass judgment yet, but if Tauriel, who is 'slightly reckless and totally ruthless and doesn’t hesitate to kill (http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/06/05/evangeline-lilly-hobbit-desolation-of-smaug/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+entertainmentweekly%2Flatest+ %28Entertainment+Weekly%3A++Today%27s+Latest%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)' only has a harsh exterior, and all it takes to warm her up and help her solve those dassy issues is a whiff of testosterone, you will know she wasn't there for the ladies.

Wait... So is she effectively Thranduil's John McClane?

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa168/The_Ka/loosecanontauriel.jpg (http://s202.photobucket.com/user/The_Ka/media/loosecanontauriel.jpg.html)

Tauriel: A Loose Canon Cop, who doesn't play by the rules!

... Sorry, I couldn't help myself when I read that description of her character. :D

I think I've collectively made my peace with this whole entire character issue now.

[Kuruharan]

Gah!

MY EYES!! :eek:

[Galadriel55]

Heck, I am an outrageous over the top demonstration of everything I am, including feminism, and I will only beat you with a banana if you don't like me because of it.

I like you well enough. :D

I was more upset about Brego replacing both Hasufel and Roheryn! He was even the wrong colour. Sheesh!

I was upset about Brego being some Arwen incarnation with four legs. Tsk tsk. That Arwen totally ruined the poor horsie. You know, PJ could have seriously developed the theme of relationships of animals to humans with this one. He should have spent more time on how Aragorn and Brego come to love each other like no two humans can.

:rolleyes: :-D

But the lack of time, given how much niggling he did do on the Silm, is not really an explanation. The point still remains that he did spend time on Galadriel and Melian, who have flaws, but not on Idril, who folks here would seem to assume was a very positive character. Would flaws have come to light had Tolkien developed her? Or was he more interested in the flawed characters and less in the good? After all, we have a great deal about Turin but less about Tuor.

Because "things that are good to hae and days that are good to spend are soon told about, and not much to listen to; while things that are uncomfortable, palpitating, and even gruesome, may make a good tale, and take a deal of telling anyway." :)

[Aganzir]

After seeing the new trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcCK55ZnoKM), Tauriel is the least of my concerns.

I certainly agree that personal attacks are inappropriate...however, I did say she looks like a Vulcan earlier in the thread.
Aw don't you mind, love, sometimes Vulcans happen.

The thing with Kiligolas (Fili is the hot one, the blonde who looks like me) hasn't been confirmed even though there have been rumours. However there have also been rumours about her having a thing with Legolas and/or Thranduil, so... For all we know, she'll teach Bard the Bowman to shoot and will end up marrying him.

This I am positive would not be appropriate for any of Tolkien's heroes, let along his heroines. It was Gandalf, after all, who warned Frodo against killing Gollem and showing him mercy instead.
And after saying something equivalent in the Hobbit film, he unnecessarily butchers the Great Goblin while joking with him. Oh PJ, you couldn't have screwed it up worse.

Ooh, careful. I've seen how swift Gal55 is with a banana in person.
I'll have you know I can shoot three bullseyes in the time it takes most shooters at the archery range I go to to shoot one arrow. ;)

Tauriel: A Loose Canon Cop, who doesn't play by the rules!
Hahaha this is amazing. :D

[Galadriel55]

I'll have you know I can shoot three bullseyes in the time it takes most shooters at the archery range I go to to shoot one. ;)

But with bananas? :p That's settled then. When we meet in RL, we will have an archery competition with bananas for bows. ;)

[Aganzir]

But with bananas? :p That's settled then. When we meet in RL, we will have an archery competition with bananas for bows. ;)
Or we can shoot bananas with rubber bands? :p

[Galadriel55]

Or we can shoot bananas with rubber bands? :p

Shoot bananas, shoot shoot bananas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_78Ck10tSE)... :D

[Zigûr]

Here's a quote from alleged Tolkien fan Philippa Boyens on the matter of 'Tauriel' derived from this TORN article: http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/07/16/59194-full-transcript-of-the-hall-h-hobbitcon-qa/

Who you saw a little bit of. She’s our redhead. We created her for that reason. To bring that energy into the film, that feminine energy. We believe it’s completely within the spirit of Tolkien. You know, we tried really hard, and she wanted that more than anything, herself. She didn’t want it to be a ploy. We wanted her to sit in the world, and I think you guys are going to fall in love with her.

Whichever marketing person thirteen years ago or so at New Line invented the phrase 'Spirit of Tolkien' must be very, very pleased with themselves.

"But why is Dale a Mediterranean city full of medieval Muscovites?"
"Spirit of Tolkien, guys, spirit of Tolkien."

"Why are Bilbo and Thorin both nothing like their book counterparts?"
"The spirit of Tolkien told me it was okay."

"Azog?"
"Spirit of Tolkien."

[LordPhillock]

Zigûr, you're hilarious and I love you. That was perfect!

[Nerwen]

Well, between that and “it’s in the Appendices", it looks like they’ve got all bases covered, doesn’t it?

I do hope the “she” who “wanted it more than anything” is Evangeline Lilly and not Tauriel.

[Zigûr]

Zigûr, you're hilarious and I love you. That was perfect!
Well you've got to laugh, haven't you? We need some 'grumpy Tolkien' smilies...

Well, between that and “it’s in the Appendices", it looks like they’ve got all bases covered, doesn’t it?
Mithril could not ward off the critics any better, could it? I find the only thing the 'Appendices defence' is preferable to is the much-repeated call by people online of "It's in The Silmarillion/Unfinished Tales/Histories/Letters/Roverandom/The Father Christmas Letters/delete-where-applicable." No it's not...

Well, apart from 'Blue Wizards', huh? I read somewhere they were advised by people of the copyright persuasion not to do that, but I guess as long as they don't name names it's fine...

[Mithalwen]

I am afraid I took near sadistic glee in quoting the letters at someone who insisited that JRRT would have loved the films. But I am paying for any bad karma fo this morning I gave myself a hair dye disaster to rival Tauriel ~ oh my children heed the words of your Auntie Mithalwen and should you absentmindedly mix the conditioner with the developer, do not think what is the worst that can happen and add the dye and slap it on anyway...

[Aganzir]

Well, between that and “it’s in the Appendices", it looks like they’ve got all bases covered, doesn’t it?
I think that's mostly used by fans who defend the films. "What do you mean there's no Azog? It's in the Appendices!"

[QUOTE]I do hope the “she” who “wanted it more than anything” is Evangeline Lilly and not Tauriel.
Well, you know, Tauriel may really have wanted to be born. That sometimes happens if you get involved in writing a story.

And we need Grumpy Tolkien smilies. Mods? Admins? Please?

Also, Zigûr, that made my day. :D