"Do You Hate Women?"

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Michael Murry

Legolas Mpreg

“This is basically a community who love Legolas as well [as] pregnant. It can be Aragorn[,] Gimili[,] even one o[f] the twins[,] but please no Thranduil or Elrond.... I just can't bear that …”

So, (ahem...) a pregnant Legolas is okay, as long as it wasn't Thranduil or Elrond who impregnated him? Okay. Got it. Thank you, Legolas MPREG.

SMH. Nonsense like this is enough to cause me hesternopothia.

[Aaron]

If they wanted a strong female character - which, I'm sorry to say, Tauriel wasn't - why not have an orc or goblin character?
Let's say they were going more by the books, and having Bolg as the leader of the orcs instead of Azog. They could have easily have given him a sister - who could have fought with him, and spurred him on, reminding him of the genuine grievances they had with Thorin and his company: In regards to both his father's death, and the death of the Great Goblin.
In the war between the Dwarves and the Orcs, Tolkien explicitly states that there was much cruelty on both sides. It wasn't a case of good and evil. You could easily show the family dynamic of an Orc dynasty looking for revenge.

Instead, we had to have a female character who ceased to really be a character. She looked perfect, fought perfectly, and seemed to exist only to pine and whine about love.
There was no personality to her, no zest, she was there to make up the numbers - and I actually find that more offensive than there being no female characters in the first place.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Aaron

If they wanted a strong female character - which, I'm sorry to say, Tauriel wasn't - why not have an orc or goblin character?

I would even ask, if one wants a strong female character, why does she have to be shown slaying warriors by the dozen?

Gladriel killed nobody in any of three films, and she radiates strength. But, this contemporary desire to highlight some form of blatant "girl power", or something, creates Tauriels all of the time, which are both cliche and almost obligatory.

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

I would even ask, if one wants a strong female character, why does she have to be shown slaying warriors by the dozen?

Gladriel killed nobody in any of three films, and she radiates strength. But, this contemporary desire to highlight some form of blatant "girl power", or something, creates Tauriels all of the time, which are both cliche and almost obligatory.

Absolutely agree. A female character is not, by sheer virtue of her gender, a representation of all womankind, and I resent the weird PR speak which often suggests that this is the case. A strong female character is a character, first and last.

I am very glad you mentioned Galadriel, because she is a fine example. In a story about temptation and war, I have always found her an oddly mournful figure, who nonetheless makes the effort to do good. There is something funereal about her, which is appropriate given how the novel deals with the passing of an age, and the slow death of the fantastic. She absolutely fits the story.

But when we think of The Hobbit, how does Tauriel fit in?
True, it is a children's story, but the book is deceptively deep, and deals with more than one little Hobbit going on an adventure. In many ways, I have always felt that the Hobbit is about sin, and sin catching up with you, when you feel safest and surest. Smaug, Thorin and Gollum all feel secure, and above consequences for their actions, and are punished for their pride. Bilbo, for his humility, is allowed to survive - and be free of gold and war for the rest of his days.

When one considers this theme, or any other which could reasonably be taken from the text, how does Tauriel reflect it? She kills many enemies in pointless action scenes, she has a love affair with a dwarf, she cries.
The character does not fit the story. Well acted, for what it was, but it simply doesn't fit.
In truth, it's the result of the whole ethos of the movie. The actress isn't to blame. They wanted to make The Hobbit into an action trilogy, and she got shoehorned into the love interest role. It's quite a shame. She would have made a good Orc

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Originally Posted by Aaron

The actress isn't to blame. They wanted to make The Hobbit into an action trilogy, and she got shoehorned into the love interest role. It's quite a shame. She would have made a good Orc

Tolkien's works would certainly be refined and deepened by a sympathetic, butt-kicking (And oddly alluring!) girl-orc-character or three. Or yrcharacters as we'd be down-right obligated to call them.

Well, I'd feel obligated, anyway.

[Faramir Jones]

In terms of what you said here, Aaron:

In truth, it's the result of the whole ethos of the movie. The actress isn't to blame. They wanted to make The Hobbit into an action trilogy, and she got shoehorned into the love interest role. It's quite a shame. She would have made a good Orc.

What annoyed me so much was the seemingly endless publicity at the time of statements that the new female Elf wasn't being introduced as a love interest...

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

In terms of what you said here, Aaron:

In truth, it's the result of the whole ethos of the movie. The actress isn't to blame. They wanted to make The Hobbit into an action trilogy, and she got shoehorned into the love interest role. It's quite a shame. She would have made a good Orc.

What annoyed me so much was the seemingly endless publicity at the time of statements that the new female Elf wasn't being introduced as a love interest...

I heard that the actress was quite insistent that she not be given a romantic subplot, but upon actually filming the thing was told that was precisely their plan.
The truth of this I don't know, but it would fit in with the wider incompetence of the troubled production.