[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.