Itaril

[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-..._video_1359582

Here's the TORN article that refers to it: http://www.3news.co.nz/Evangeline-Li...0/Default.aspx

[Galadriel55]

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Inzil

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 ). 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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

[Bêthberry]

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

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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.)