Tauriel: Keep her, change her or remove her?

Discussion in 'New Line Cinema's "The Hobbit"' started by Elaini, Dec 31, 2018.

  1. Galin

    Galin Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    824
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I don't really follow the film lore, but I was under the impression (so far) that Jackson considered Tauriel a not-Sindarin Silvan elf.
     
  2. Elaini

    Elaini Lost in Eä

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2018
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Finland
    Home Page:
    Depends what you consider as Sindar. Nandor or Laiquendi are also found under the Sindar category, though after Denethor's death they preferred to have their king from their main Sindar group. So Thranduil and Legolas are definitely "the main Sindar".

    Also, by the Third Age the Avari (those that weren't captured and changed into Orcs) were pretty much melted into what is known as Silvan Elves, with Nandor and Laiquendi.
     

  3. Galin

    Galin Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    824
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The Sindar are the Eldar who "coming to the shores of Middle-earth, had not passed over the Sea but had lingered on the coasts of the country of Beleriand." Appendix F

    The East-elves of Mirkwood were not Sindarin -- yes, Thranduil is, being among "... many of the Sindar passed eastward, and some established realms in the forests far away, where their people were mostly Silvan Elves" Appendix B

    But anyway, the question is, did Jackson consider Tauriel Sindarin (an Elda from Beleriand who migrated East to Mirkwood), or one of the Silvan Elves who had remained East of the Misty Mountains during the Great March.

    I thought it was the latter.
     
    Ithilethiel likes this.
  4. Ithilethiel

    Ithilethiel Active Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2018
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Woodland Realm
    The Hobbit movies were just an overall disappointment for me. Tauriel was just one of the reasons why. But staying on topic, the primary reason I dislike Tauriel is for the very reason she was present in Jackson's universe in the first place. Her sole purpose was to present the physical trope of a strong, fearless female warrior equal to any elven male. It was to fulfill a supposed role modern audiences might demand. Jackson sold out JRRT, LOTR and Hobbit fans for the sake of uniformed fans and critics.

    And just for kicks and another dose of, "let's thumb our noses at canon," Jackson threw in a nonsensical triangular romance...elven prince-dwarf on a mission-commoner she elf. For the many reasons already cited and the sheer obnoxiouness of it. I could do very nicely without her.

    Jackson and crew never realized it but they already had a number of strong, smart and fearless female characters if they had just stuck to the intent and the characters as written. None of the additional layers and angst were necessary.

    Is it any wonder that anything Jackson and team touches is anathema to most Tolkien purists?

    As far as those who watched the movies but never read the books, they was robbed!
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019

  5. Merroe

    Merroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2016
    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Luxembourg
    I found Tauriel absurd and useless in the story, just as much as Alfrid.

    It seemed to me that there was "more of the same" from the preceding LotR movies: love affairs (the absurdly magnified love affair Aragorn-Arwen) and low-level slapstick (I am still horrified how big a fool PJ made of Gimli).

    In TH, I suppose that love affairs needed the creation of Tauriel and slapstick the creation of Alfrid.

    Someone must have thought that movies with love affairs and stupid humor sell better. :cool: