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

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by G55

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. 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.)

Originally Posted by G55

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.

Originally Posted by Kitanna

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]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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.