Itaril

[Nerwen]

Where'd they get the reporter from? Cryogenic storage? Who talks like that?

[Galadriel55]

To-oriel? And they said something about learning pronounciation... It's not enough that they have to stick her in, they can't even say her name?...

Elfchick, could you please give a link to that interview? I'm not very familiar with TORN and I couldn't find the interview you were talking about...

[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

[Elfchick7]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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.

....

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

I would like to clarify my position on this matter. I have no anger/hatred/venom towards PJ, Evangeline Lilly, or anyone else, for that matter. I have no personal problem with the books having been adapted into films, or with most of the little changes that PJ made. (I realize that on that point I am a majority.) I have a great deal of respect for film as an artform, when it is well used.

That said, when I first heard of the addition of the character Itaril/Tauriel, my heart sank. I was worried that it would turn out to be something like what sadly happened to the adaptation of Prince Caspian. As I watch the behind the scenes footage and read up on PJ's facebook page, I became cautiously hopeful that, while not the book in any way, The Hobbit would turn out to be a lovely tribute to Tolkien's work that would draw in an entirely new generation.

However, I do find that all of the publicity surrounding the character of Tauriel is chipping away at my hope. Not because of Evangeline Lilly, who is handling the whole awkward situation with much grace, in my opinion, but because of the general (albeit not unfounded) assumption that many of the fans will react negatively. There are Tolkien fans who will never be pleased with any film adaptation of the books, but I do feel that as the publicity around this character grows, it invites people to ask the question, "What have they done to feel that this much damage control is necessary?"

Frankly, the reporter was rude and patronizing. That annoyed me. I moved on. The fear still remains that all of this damage control is, in fact, to prepare us for a huge detour from Tolkien's original work.

[Nerwen]

I will repeat what I've said before: there is, in principle, nothing wrong with adding more named roles to "The Hobbit"– in fact, I'd say it's necessary, in order to "flesh out" groups like the Lake Men and Wood Elves- who in the book are given very little individuality at all. And I think there has been far too much jumping to conclusions, too much wild speculation, and yes, too much venom. (Expressed, if I may say so, in what at times has been a distinctly sexist manner.) We simply don't know anything about this "Tauriel" role yet, and that's that. Superfluous? Maybe. Elven tart in a wet T-shirt? Why? PJ et al., whatever other sins they may have committed, did *not* put anyone like that in the LotR movies.

However, let's not let the reaction to the reaction get out of hand either. (The Amy Winehouse affair being a case in point, as very soon her fans were ready to scream "hater" at anyone unwilling to join in their mutual weeping-and-scar-baring fest– I copped some of that myself.) The original "Itaril" character was pretty darned worrisome, and I can see why some people are ready to fear the worst of "Tauriel". On that note, though– the "damage control" Elfchick speaks of may be more because of the general response to "Itaril", than because "Tauriel" is going to be just as bad. That is, they're in damage-control mode, all right, but perhaps it's because of damage that's happened already.

[Elfchick7]

Nerwen, you make an excellent point.

[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.)

[Galadriel55]

In reply to those posts that talk about gender problems:

I have no issue with the gender by itself. I have an issue with Xena-ing the role. I recall reading (in different places, too) that the character showed good fighting skills at an early age, and because of that was appointed to be one of the King's guards. Moreover, she's supposed to fall in love with an Elven Lord (guess who ). I think this will be just as bad as the Xenarwen of LOTR (minor character, sure, but does enough damage).

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Elfchick7

I would like to clarify my position on this matter. I have no anger/hatred/venom towards PJ, Evangeline Lilly, or anyone else, for that matter. I have no personal problem with the books having been adapted into films, or with most of the little changes that PJ made. (I realize that on that point I am a majority.) I have a great deal of respect for film as an artform, when it is well used.

In some of the plays I was in there was always problems with other cast members not showing up. Sometimes it angered the director to the point where he'd boil over and rip the heads off the the ones who were coming and understood what to do. I'd sit there knowing the ones he's really upset with are the ones who wouldn't come. They were the ones who needed to hear how upset the director was, but of course never would.

This happens frequently, the ones who need to hear it often don't, or ignore. The ones who don't take it to heart because they already understood but don't want to go misunderstood. Where was I going? Oh, yeah, for my part...the clarification of your stance wasn't necessary.

I was trying to raise a more general point and not one specifically on Tauriel or any specific members criticism of the character. Although, she was part of it, because I honestly didn't understand where some of the harshness was coming from. I mean, I think a lot of book fans feared what Jackson would do to Tolkien's story before they even knew who Jackson was and before the first movie came out. After seeing what he did to the LOTR movies, there may be more fear on what he will do with The Hobbit. However, I will ask to go back to the first experience of the LOTR movies.

I left enjoyed and relieved. I was captivated by the films and relieved because I left feeling it could have been a lot worse. I think Jackson got carried away in his attempt to put his ideas in the story, when there was absolutely no reason to. There's no doubt he could have done more, but in his line of work you need an ego. It was that ego which got in the way of staying closer to the books, but it was also that ego which held off and resisted the hand that Newline wanted to stick in.

I'm not saying everyone had to leave feeling the same way I did. Whether some loved 'em or hated 'em doesn't effect me at all. Jackson's a big boy who doesn't need my defending. But, where I was getting at is, the movies drew me to the much larger Tolkien community. It's why I came here. Why have I stayed here over the years, when my interest in the films has continually dropped since my original enjoyment? Tolkien's a far more interesting chap than Jackson, and the lovely Wights waiting to welcome. So, I attempted to recall my first watching of the films after I read and was taken aback by the harshness. Realized that despite my waning interest, I did greatly enjoy them and they were what brought me to the larger Tolkien community. The Hobbit films are coming a decade later. There's going to be a whole new age group who will probably expereince the story for the first time. They will be interested and curious, and whatever one feels about the films, we shouldn't forget how excited we were when experiencing Tolkien's stories for the first time (and whether it was through Jackson's movies or not).

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.)~Bethberry

Thanks for the compliment on being able to read your mind, I'll try to do so again, because it's what I meant when I said I was "surprised" by some of the comments. I know this isn't want you mean about the dwarves, but what shocked me the most was some of the "oh great....more large bussomed women running around in skimpy clothes, wielding swords."

Ok. We have Xenarwen, but just step back and think of the costumes in the films, and you realize how overboard the criticism is (and this goes with as much as Jackson exaggerated stuff, I think people can get as equally as exaggerated in their criticisms). Arwen was made into an active role, but come on, she was hardly wearing anything inappropriate with wardrobe malfunctions waiting to happen as she was bouncing around on a stolen horse. Same for Eowyn, who I thought Miranda Otto was made to actually look older than the book Eowyn.

So my mind reading attempt again, yes I know this isn't what you meant about the Dwarves (it just reminded me of the criticisms that shocked me about Tauriel). Because you do raise a good point about the Dwarves getting hunked up and played by some current studly actors. However, I think of the book I'm currently reading (Game of Thrones) and how much I adore the direwolves that follow the Stark kids around. I mean, George Martin has managed to create something as sinister sounding as a direwolf, yet make them completely adorable wolfpups who cutely plod along with the Stark kids everywhere. So, in this ridiculously biased and influenced person's opinion - if Jackson can make the dwarves a motley crew of sexy eye candy, more power to him. (I Just hope we don't get a travelling carnival troupe of Gimli's, that's my fear).

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I left feeling it could have been a lot worse.

If we were all as optimistic!...

Ok. We have Xenarwen, but just step back and think of the costumes in the films, and you realize how overboard the criticism is (and this goes with as much as Jackson exaggerated stuff, I think people can get as equally as exaggerated in their criticisms). Arwen was made into an active role, but come on, she was hardly wearing anything inappropriate with wardrobe malfunctions waiting to happen as she was bouncing around on a stolen horse. Same for Eowyn, who I thought Miranda Otto was made to actually look older than the book Eowyn.

The costumes in LOTR were very well done, IMO. I think that the wet-shirt-big-bussomed-young-woman-waving-swords-around expression in this discussion talks more about the role of the character, not the appearance. Personally, when I encounter such a descritpion now, I don't visualise the skimpy-dressed girl but I think of the horror of what the character's done to the story.

So my mind reading attempt again, yes I know this isn't what you meant about the Dwarves (it just reminded me of the criticisms that shocked me about Tauriel). Because you do raise a good point about the Dwarves getting hunked up and played by some current studly actors. However, I think of the book I'm currently reading (Game of Thrones) and how much I adore the direwolves that follow the Stark kids around. I mean, George Martin has managed to create something as sinister sounding as a direwolf, yet make them completely adorable wolfpups who cutely plod along with the Stark kids everywhere. So, in this ridiculously biased and influenced person's opinion - if Jackson can make the dwarves a motley crew of sexy eye candy, more power to him. (I Just hope we don't get a travelling carnival troupe of Gimli's, that's my fear).

Ummm.... have you seen this picture? I think "sexed up" is a good description.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

The costumes in LOTR were very well done, IMO. I think that the wet-shirt-big-bussomed-young-woman-waving-swords-around expression in this discussion talks more about the role of the character, not the appearance. Personally, when I encounter such a descritpion now, I don't visualise the skimpy-dressed girl but I think of the horror of what the character's done to the story.

But making that "wet tshirt warrior" criticism is at best an innocent exaggeration for effect and at worst is deliberately misleading.

Ummm.... have you seen this picture? I think "sexed up" is a good description.

I don't believe I disagreed with this, I said if direwolves can be made into adorable bundles of furry cuddliness, than Jackson's attempt to sex up the dwarves....go for it, not a big deal. A bigger issue I'd have is getting 13 movie Gimli's instead of 13 differing dwarves of different backgrounds, experiences and personalities.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Boro

But making that "wet tshirt warrior" criticism is at best an innocent exaggeration for effect and at worst is deliberately misleading.

I just don't think it's a fair criticism– and since there's really nothing in either the existing movies or the current "Hobbit" publicity to base it on, it just seems to me to say more about the person making it than anything else, quite honestly.

Originally Posted by Boro

I don't believe I disagreed with this, I said if direwolves can be made into adorable bundles of furry cuddliness, than Jackson's attempt to sex up the dwarves....go for it, not a big deal.

Yes, but what does what a writer does with his own characters– and critters– have to do with the issue of faithfulness in an adaption? I don't see that it does, Boro. (A palaentologist might object, I suppose.)

[Galadriel55]

Do we know what will be in the movies?

The optimists among us say, no, we don't, so let's not ruin our day by wild exaggerative speculation.

The pesimists say, yes, we do, we've seen what happened to LOTR and we can predict what will be in TH, and it's not gonna impress us.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Do we know what will be in the movies?

The optimists among us say, no, we don't, so let's not ruin our day by wild exaggerative speculation.

The pesimists say, yes, we do, we've seen what happened to LOTR and we can predict what will be in TH, and it's not gonna impress us.

That's an over-simplification. I, for example, do not at the moment have very high hopes for the "Hobbit" films(s)– but that doesn't make wild speculation any more valid.

And if sound like I'm jumping on the bandwaggon– well, maybe, but the fact is, I've been concerned about some of the comments in this thread for a while.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

...but that doesn't make wild speculation any more valid.

By saying this you are saying that we don't know what there will be and there's no point in provoking our strong antagonism to the movies further for no reason, which puts you in the optimist group.... Even if you don't have high hopes for the movie, it till makes you more optimistic than me (I place myself in the pessimists, with all the rants I've said about what will be in the movie)....

Let's put it this way (in yet another oversimplification): you are willing to let it rest for the time being, until we know for sure. I'm saying that we already know for sure, so there is no point in letting it rest.



I think my brain is calling for a dose of WW to get all this proving-the-point thing and the classifying-people thing out of me.

[Inziladun]

As one of the Constant Critics, I apologize if I've gone too far in anything I've said.

Frustrating as it is seeing PJ apparently monkeying around with another Tolkien book, it's no excuse for incivility or being crass.

[Elfchick7]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

As one of the Constant Critics, I apologize if I've gone too far in anything I've said.

Frustrating as it is seeing PJ apparently monkeying around with another Tolkien book, it's no excuse for incivility or being crass.

See, this is what I love about the Downs! People express their opinions and if someone feels that the tone is too acerbic, everyone is considerate of that and acts accordingly. I know that is really just a common courtesy, but it really isn't as common as it ought to be.

[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.

[Boromir88]

Who's doing the cheer leading? I thought Jackson was the king of exaggeration and then I read the first 4 pages of this thread

Tolkien's writing stands on it's own and nothing Jackson or anyone does can tarnish what the author achieved. What did Jackson not sign a movie poster for you? Because the amount of vitriol against him looks personal to you.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

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.

I understand and share to some extent your scorn for this character and its repetitive failures. However, I think that those who started the thread you speak about don't deserve such a tone. If Itaril is a "must" in PJ's eyes under whatever name, so it be - but if she is there we would like to see her as... Well, better than a "butt-kicking elvish love interest". I mean, realistically, the director is likely to be sued by half the population for being sexist if he doesn't include women in his film. But he can vary how much the female roles affect the story, mood, etc.

I have been quite venomous earlier in this thread about the effects of this "strong female character Itaril/Tauriel" on TH, I admit. Looking back, I realise it was unnecessary, and I could have said the same thing with a calmer tone.

Originally Posted by TMT

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.

...As long as that doesn't cross the line of trolling. Something I will try to avoid on my part.

Originally Posted by TMT

Or, to lower the standards of discussion further in verse

Verse is always high standart, in my opinion.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I mean, realistically, the director is likely to be sued by half the population for being sexist if he doesn't include women in his film. But he can vary how much the female roles affect the story, mood, etc.)...

I haven't heard any uproar over David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia or Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan, neither of which had a central female figure. Besides, Galadriel will once again be trotted out for the White Council scenes.

I suppose I just can't see the vaguest reason for an Itaril/Tauriel character, other than chewing up minutes of the movie better served to tell the actual original plot. I think we can all agree that the further PJ deviated from the original storyline in LoTR, the weaker the sequences were. This inherent impulse for deviation seems more rooted in PJ's obsessive need to put his imprint on the story, rather than actually offering anything intriguing.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I suppose I just can't see the vaguest reason for an Itaril/Tauriel character, other than chewing up minutes of the movie better served to tell the actual original plot. I think we can all agree that the further PJ deviated from the original storyline in LoTR, the weaker the sequences were. This inherent impulse for deviation seems more rooted in PJ's obsessive need to put his imprint on the story, rather than actually offering anything intriguing.

Too true. And the worst thing is that in LOTR he took away original material in order to insert his ideas. I hope that there will be at least enough true Hobbit in the two-part (!) films.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I suppose I just can't see the vaguest reason for an Itaril/Tauriel character, other than chewing up minutes of the movie better served to tell the actual original plot. I think we can all agree that the further PJ deviated from the original storyline in LoTR, the weaker the sequences were. This inherent impulse for deviation seems more rooted in PJ's obsessive need to put his imprint on the story, rather than actually offering anything intriguing.

Yes, I'd agree the further away from the story Jackson got the worse the movie became. But, there's nothing wrong with a bit of ego, or an artist desiring to put their own imprint on a work. Jackson and his team often said they were trying to improve the story, which, in my opinion, there is nothing inherently evil in trying to improve something.

What those improvement were, and whether they were actually making improvements is another question. It's clear in some cases there was no evil deliberate manipulations, but rather he didn't understand the story (which is worse? I don't know ). Like, he seriously believed Sauron was a giant floating eyeball. Others like cutting down all the aspects that make Faramir noble, or reducing Gimli to a running gag of jokes were deliberate attempts to improve. What I'm trying to argue though is, Jackson's a film director and the drive to improve doesn't make him TEH BIGBAD evil destroyer of Tolkien's legacy. Tolkien's legacy was there before Jackson ever conceived of making films and can't be taken away.

Like I said before, I couldn't care less what someone thinks of the movies or Jackson. He's a big boy who has lots of money now. Good for him. I'll be more clear about it now. In order to have any good discussion there has to be disagreement. I can secretly laugh at the beautiful sarcasm through yours, Inzil's, and several others' posts and still be perfectly content arguing. But, in my opinion, TMT went beyond good natured, insightful disagreement and personally, I thought it appallingly distasteful.

As creative and clever as the words were, there's no need to be crude or vicious in your language. Like it or not, I do believe the movies will be a first introduction to the story for a new group of people, either who were too young or weren't born when LOTR movies came out. That means, I also believe the 'Downs will get a boost (perhaps only temporarily) in new members. If mean-spiritted and crude posts is what the members want to sit back and yuck up over, I don't want any part of it. But no worries about that, I can stay out of the Movie forum easily enough.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

"TMT went beyond good natured, insightful disagreement and personally, I thought it appallingly distasteful." -- Boromir88

Thank you. I'll take that as a compliment.

Frankly, I do not remember directing any unkind or unfair remarks to any other poster in this forum. In fact, I don't think I have "disagreed" with almost anyone here. I have expressed my own opinion and directed my remarks -- in the clearest and most literary way I know how -- distinctly at what I consider a truly lousy idea. And I don't write for children.

Now, if you feel inclined to take umbrage at my manner of expressing myself, then I can't do anything about that. As the Buddha said: You can't give offense to anyone unwilling to take it. Take as little or as much as you like. I have never seen your published standards for forum discussion and I certainly haven't agreed to abide by them. I write what I wish to say. Others can take that or leave that, just as I take or leave what they have to say. I never take offense because I won't allow anyone else to give me any.

Personally, I spent too many years in the United States military and too many of those years in the now-defunct Republic of South Vietnam because the majority of my countrymen thought it impolite and distasteful to bluntly question official stupidity when they had the chance to do something about it. And I lived long enough to see the whole sorry, rats-*** "war" wagon get rolling again for another decade of mindless mayhem and near national bankruptcy. By this late date, few persons in my country seem the slightest bit interested in sanity, so sheepishly accustomed to the criminally insane have they become. You can only stop a war or the erosion of civil liberties before the process starts, not once it gets going.

I feel the same about these films. I don't want to see cheesy Hollywood crap spoil a moment of them, and if I can say or do anything to help prevent that I will. Moaning about it after it happens doesn't interest me in the least. Too late then. On the other hand, fierce and rancid reaction before the crime has a chance of preventing it. For an example, see the antagonistic audience reaction to Jackson's 48 frames-per-second projection speed trailer exhibition that resulted in him showing his latest Hobbit footage at the standard 24 frames-per-second during the recent ComicCon exhibition. Negative feedback can and does work. If people don't like something they should say so. But if they couch their remarks in mealy-mouthed, simpering euphemisms -- i.e., "take out" rather than "kill" -- then no one in a position of power will take them at all seriously. Ridicule that hits the mark accomplishes a lot more than vapid generalizations that fear to "offend" tender sensibilities. Grownups can discuss anything without taking any offense whatsoever. So I write for adults.

As my younger brother the high school teacher and football coach likes to tell his students and players: "You will receive from others in this life precisely the treatment that you are prepared to tolerate." The same goes for crappy films and ruinous, endless "wars." Tolerate them for an instant and you'll get only more of the same.

And by the way, women who serve in real-world military forces -- as opposed to sanitized, choreographed fantasy ones -- stand a greater chance of sexual assault from their fellow male servicemen than they do getting killed in battle by the enemy. I take it that you would would not wish to read any real-world literature or see any graphic films painting for you a picture of what an actual elf-chick security guard's life would resemble. I don't think you have any idea whatsoever. And neither does Peter Jackson and his "strong women" script-writing team. So I don't want to see any of their dance-routines masquerading as orc-and-warg-disemboweling "combat." I'd rather just hear a poetry recitation. Much more useful and believable.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

"I have never seen your published standards for forum discussion and I certainly haven't agreed to abide by them. I write what I wish to say. Others can take that or leave that, just as I take or leave what they have to say.

Just to clarify what the forum standards are, TMT, you can find them here:Barrow Downs Forum Policies and here: Guidelines for Forum Posting.

The Barrow Downs has always been an inclusive discussion forum. That is, very early on the Administrators decided that the general tone of discussion ought to be one which would be appropriate for children, adolescents, and adults, because Tolkien's work appeals to all those audiences. The style was a nod to Tolkien's own civility. That might be a standard now generally not respected in various cultures around the world, but it is a standard which we try to respect here.

By posting here, you agree to abide by these standards. If you don't want to "write for children" then don't post here, because we don't use "children" pejoratively to denigrate civility and respect for others. We disagree, but we don't lard our attacks with insults and sarcasm at the poster.

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

Frankly, I do not remember directing any unkind or unfair remarks to any other poster in this forum. In fact, I don't think I have "disagreed" with almost anyone here.

I distinctly remember some very rude and sarcastic comments to Formendacil -- comments which were unfair. And other Downers did object to them as something not in keeping with the spirit of the Downs.


Just sayin'.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

. Grownups can discuss anything without taking any offense whatsoever. So I write for adults.
.

Just bear in mind that though that this is not an adults only forum. It does have a family friendly policy. While many of the youngsters who joined perhaps because of the first films are now grown up, we do have some younger members and are likely to get more as the new films arrive. I am sure film cynics will have a particular desire to set them on the "true path" ie loving the books as the Prof wrote them and it would be a shame if parents, rightfully concerned about what their young are doing on line felt that this was not a suitable place for them.

I have found many of your posts pithy and extremely funny but some have been a bit near the knuckle and I have actually been suprised that they hadn't been picked up on. I am sorry if this sounds prissy but it is just a case of remembering that we aren't all grown ups and using language accordingly.

[Nerwen]

Misfortune Teller, I myself have very serious doubts indeed about these Hobbit films, which are starting to sound more and more like glorified fan-fiction– but it seems to me, too, that you could just as well discuss them– or even blast them, hey!– while being bit more civil and a bit less crude. Further– though it is fair enough for you to object to Tauriel as a likely Mary-Sue-action-girl–cliché– I regret to say that I've been getting more and more the impression from you of a certain degree of general hostility towards women– or at any any rate towards those who (even in fiction) step outside what you consider a woman's proper place to be. It may be wrong, but that's what I'm getting. I mean, so much of your negativity here seems to have been prompted by the mere addition of a female character, and also by her being a warrior or something (not unheard of in Tolkien's work, so I don't see why it should be in itself considered a travesty).

On a somewhat similar note: as I believe this is not the first time you've introduced a little piece about American foreign policy into a thread about film adaptations, I think I should tell you that it's pretty hard for a reader to know how to respond to this kind of thing. However strong this curious association of ideas may be for you, I doubt many other people share it, so I'm afraid it's just coming across as rather random and confusing, honestly.

I suppose what I'm really saying here is– rail against Jackson and his past and present efforts all you like, but please lighten up a bit, and maybe try and shed some of this extra baggage you seem to be bringing with you. Okay? How about it?

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Make sure you get your Young-Elf-Lord + Elf-Chick-Security-Guard toys and posters as soon as they hit Toys-R-Us, Tolkienite consumers, even though you may have to wait another year to actually see these characters "intertwine" in Part Two of a shorter story by J. R. R. Tolkien in which they never appeared, either singly or together.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012...ed/#more-62227

Toy-store-merchandize-tie-ins driving a story's narrative and characters may thrill consumers of crap commodities, but I prefer my literate entertainment -- like my drinking water -- pure and not polluted with Hollywood formula industrial waste.

We see them now together
Just like we long suspected:
Her coy, come-hither glances
Leave him (surprise!) erected.

I remember at the conclusion of the Lord of the Rings trilogy where a great many viewers -- including Jack Nicholson -- complained of the "multiple endings" that occurred after King Aragorn and his Elven Princess Arwen had their big kiss at his coronation. The film-makers had spent so much of the narrative trying to beef up this Hollywood romance angle -- hardly mentioned at all by Tolkien -- that the hobbits had become almost an afterthought. I see the same dubious dynamic at work with this completely unnecessary "thing" between the young (only a few thousand years old) Elf Lord Legolas and Itaril (Release 1.0) or Tauriel (Release 2.0) fan-fiction marketing ploy. Any time spent away from Bilbo Baggins makes The Hobbit less about one particular, exemplary hobbit and more about selling tie-in toys and video games to "Tolkienite consumers."

I would lampoon this ludicrous idea in even more scatological verse if only I knew how. Sometimes a dumb idea becomes so much a parody of itself that even poetic license cannot improve upon the inherent irony.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

But, MisfortuneTeller,

Why don't you say what you really think? I mean, don't hold back...

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

Make sure you get your Young-Elf-Lord + Elf-Chick-Security-Guard toys and posters as soon as they hit Toys-R-Us, Tolkienite consumers, even though you may have to wait another year to actually see these characters "intertwine" in Part Two of a shorter story by J. R. R. Tolkien in which they never appeared, either singly or together.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012...ed/#more-62227

I like this quote from the article:

[Thranduil's] appearance in the film, while not cannon, is certainly logical and perhaps even likely. His role in Jackson’s films are not yet clear.

Odds are it'll be a "cannon" all right, blowing a Smaug-sized hole into the concept of artistic integrity.

I'm just waiting for Transformer-style Beorn, going from man to bear, and back again. And will the Master of Lake-town come with a huge pile of gold to allow one to re-enact his running off to the wilderness and dying of dragon-sickness?