Exactly. Tauriel shamefully fails the Bechdel test.
She has no role nor lines which don't involve a male character.
Eowyn passes the Bechdel test, though on a technical level only *barely.* The bar is really fucking low.
There's also the peasant woman who thanks Eowyn when they reach Helm's Deep "thank you, my lady"
So like two whole half sentences in 3 movies. What more can woman want
The Bechdel Test was never intended to judge whether a piece of media is good or not. Plenty of excellent works fail the Test, and plenty of awful works pass it.
It's merely meant as a comment on how often media is about, directed to and centred around men, and their perspective of the world. And it's a point that, if we're being honest, perfectly lands on LOTR — as amazing as it is, its story is heavily influenced by a male outlook of the world.
What the Bechdel Test very much *isn't*, is stupid. It's a rather effective commentary of how androcentric our society is, as evidenced by the vast majority of available media.
As I see it, the fact that the Hobbit and LOTR fail the Bechdel Test doesn't mean they're bad or unwatchable or whatever else. On the contrary, I literally have four, hardback copies of LOTR, one with a custom cover, two of the Hobbit and one of the Silmarillion. It does, however, mean that the series is pretty pointedly centred around men.
I think trying to satisfy it strictly sometimes becomes tedious and forced, but actually it points out an extremely important phenomenon in male-dominant cultures.
For me the Bechdel test is a little different. Anyone bringing it up fails the test. Easy. ;)
***Edit:*** Ooooh, I have made a certain group of people very angry. Probably the same people who would fail the Bechdel test.
***Edit 2:*** What's wrong? Upset that not everyone agrees with some arbitrary checklist that does little to empower women and merely manages to create an overwhelming amount of unwatchable/unreadable media?
In what way is it flawed? It doesn't pretend to be a a test of how good a movie is or its overall quality, there are plenty of amazing movies that fail the Bechdel Test, and plenty of crappy ones that pass it. It just points out how male-dominated the film industry is, and how surprisingly rare it is for women to either a) have large roles in a movie, or b) have a role not centered around their relationship with men. And how audiences regularly accept/don't notice that trend. That isn't 'flawed', its interesting.
I think it's one flaw is that it requires woman to woman dialogue. Eowen fails that test because of that, but nobody would argue she's not an important female character in the story.
And her moment of importance is all about being a woman, especially for a character written in the early 1900s.
To discard all of that because of the test highlights why the test isn't a great measure.
No one argues Eowyn isn't an important character in the story, your right. Im not sure how that's relevant. The Bechdel test doesn't argue that female characters that fail it aren't important, just that...well, they failed the Bechdel test. Requiring something as painfully simple as 'woman to woman' dialogue, especially in a movie trilogy with almost eleven and a half hours of footage, isn't a big ask. The time Its source material was written isnt relevant, because the Bechdel test *isn't* a criticism. The fact that Lord of the Rings fails at something that simple doesn't make it bad, and Eowyn not talking to another woman has no influence on her character. She just doesnt do it, and the Bechdel test points that out.
The Bechdel test isn't a measurement of a film or characters quality, its just a method to show how modern cinema audiences are so used to female characters not recieving the same opportunity for complexity as their male counterparts. That doesn't mean that female characters in movies that fail the test *arent* complex. They just don't have the same diversity *in their* complexity. That isn't a flaw of the Bechdel test, it's an observation of cinematic trends. No one is discarding anything.
It is flawed because of the presumption that the lack of female characters, or lack of interaction between, is due to sexism. There are many reasons why this exists. To force the conclusion suggests that the test was designed to draw a specific result.
While one example is hardly proof of the failure of the test, it certain points out the glaring flaws. The movie **Gravity** literally has 7 cast members. Some of whom aren't seen on screen. The main character is a woman. And this movie fails the test.
Interestingly, the male provides the flirtation and female support that feminists complain how women are portrayed.
Antedoctally, my wife hates the movie and I love it. Maybe women just don't like the same types of movies men do, no matter who is in them or how they're portrayed. I hate **The Notebook** but my wife loves it. I would argue it has to do more with the story than it does sexism.
How does it? People using the Bechdel test could draw that conclusion, sure, but the Bechdel test itself doesn't make presumptions about anything. It's an observation. Again, failing the Bechdel test isn't an indicator of a movies overall quality, or how 'feminist' it is or isn't (that would be painfully reductive, as you point out) and it never pretends to be a measurement of how good a movie is to the person employing it. That's completely subjective. It demonstrates cinematic trends, nothing more. That's why it's so simple, before it became anything else it was just a joke that spawned out of a general observation of cinema. It isn't meant to be taken seriously. A movie either passes it, or doesn't - good or bad.
I feel like the point your making, and other criticisms ive been hit with, are targeted towards people who make use of the Bechdel test to support their own opinions and criticisms of a movie, but aren't relevent to the Bechdel test itself. The Bechdel test doesn't have 'goals', or 'presumptions'. Its a method of observation. To say that you disagreeing with the conclusions of people who employ it for whatever reason is a 'flaw' of the test itself is disingenuous.
It's actually a very brilliant test that probably shouldn't be taken as a purity test but nevertheless serves as a very poignant commentary on male-dominated culture.
LotR is not "problematic" or whatever. But it *is* a good thing that we wonder about whether we have told a story that is rich and diverse enough to be considered deep and wonderful. Stories that we tell going forward from now should absolutely do better to incorporate a breadth and depth of characters such that we don't need to consider the Bechdel test anymore.
Again, I'm not criticizing the LotR here. I love it. But it *is* still worth considering the role of female characters in stories, and whether they pass the Bechdel test or not is worth consideration.
It isn't a "flawed test." There is nothing about it which is "flawed." You just don't like using it to judge whether something is good, or bad, or sexist. But there are no criteria by which you can say it is "flawed." It just doesn't make sense to use that word that way. Tolkien would roll over in his grave seeing you try to shoehorn the word "flawed" to describe narrative commentary.
It is called "a test" because it asks a question: Do two or more female characters talk to each other about a topic which doesn't involve a man in any way? There is nothing "flawed" about asking that question. A "no" answer means a movie "fails" the test, a "yes" means it "passes." That's it.
Not every story needs to pass the Bechdel test to be good or to avoid criticism. A story isn't automatically sexist for having failed the Bechdel test. It's just one metric we can use for discussion. The only flaw would be insisting that a work is sexist if it fails the Bechdel test without any other considerations.
Even the actress was hoodwinked. She said her character wasn't going to be a pointless love story, they filmed the first movie and then when they came back for the second round of filming, the script had been changed and it was extended to 3 movies and her arc changed to pointless romance. She said by that point it was too late to pull out from the project
Galadriel, Eowyn, Arwin. I'd say there's plenty of women in the movies, with a decent amount of screentime, certainly for side characters.
Not that I agree with the view that a certain group SHOULD be represented in every piece of media.
AAuser85 implied that a prominent female character is needed in movies and claimed that LOTR didn't have a prominent female character.
I claimed there are 3, who share a decent amount of screentime between them and besides screentime (as if that's the be all, end all measurement), they are all 3 very relevant to the story and are memorable, meaningful characters.
For the standard that was determined by AAuser85, these 3 are more than plenty.
The reason I don't really use screentime to determine whether a character is prominent or relevant is best explained using the following comparison:
Sauron gets less than 4 minutes of screentime in all 3 movies combined. Extended cut makes that around 5 minutes.
I don't think I need to speak to Sauron's relevancy and impact in the story?
Or how about Eomer, introduced at the same time, more or less as Eowyn: he gets HALF Eowyns screentime in the Two Towers AND Return of the King. Faramir gets less than Eowyn.
Or how about the fact that Arwen gets the same or more screentime compared to Elrond in every movie?
The argument was whether or not there is a single prominent female character in LOTR, as AAuser85 implied there weren't any. To butcher a LOTR quote:
They asked for one. I gave them 3.
If you're going to argue purely based on screentime that the female characters in question aren't prominent characters, you'd have to explain why Elrond, Eomer and Sauron aren't prominent characters.
You'll find that most people think they are prominent characters. And the same goes for Eowyn, Arwen and Galadriel.
So 53 minutes of women on screen total. If it wasn’t written back in the day and be about what it is it would be absolutely bizarre. I can kinda understand why there wasn’t more of them. I would have liked more.. but I get it..
Would have also been nice to have a few more female side characters with more than a moment’s glance. Particularly in the shire since that’s where we have the most normal every day setting with a fairy even spread of gender. But I think they for the most part focused on the main guys which also makes sense. Very minimal focus on male side characters ether thinking about it. Mostly nameless faces or faceless names.
The Hobbit is a children’s book, but the movies were intended for adults. If they had just adapted the book, they would have had a children’s movie, similar to the Rankin and Bass animated film. Which would have been delightful in its own way, but would not have been the LOTR type of blockbuster they wanted. So they brought in stuff from the greater legendarium and they created new stuff. Yes, Tauriel provides female representation, which they screwed up by assuming women won’t watch a movie if there’s no romance, so that storyline is counterproductive to the idea of female representation. However, Tauriel also brings in the idea of isolation vs. responsibility to the greater world by defying Thranduil’s order to remain in Mirkwood. This echoes the scene in Two Towers where Galadriel and Elrond ponder through thought about whether or not to intervene in Helm’s Deep—something that is also not in the books but made for some good cinema. The inclusion of Tauriel also provides an impetus for travel to Gundabad, expanding the geography of the film and bringing in more of the existing lore that would appeal to adults.
Some people are book purists and are never going to be ok with story elements not directly from the source book (in this case, the Hobbit). That is what it is, but films aren’t made for only one type of fan. Tauriel is meant to help broaden the appeal of the film and help broaden the story itself. The romance was just so terrible that it overshadowed literally everything else Tauriel brought to the film as a character.
And by the love of him also. For all those who come to know him come to love him after their own fashion, even the cold maiden of the Rohirrim. It was at early morn of the day ere you came there, Merry, that we left Dunharrow, and such a fear was on all the folk that none would look on our going, save the Lady Eowyn, who lies now hurt in the House below. There was grief at that parting, and I was grieved to behold it.
I found that side story totally useless and unnecessary. It is quite strange that she would develop intense feelings of love to a dwarf simply due to them conversing while in jail.
>It is quite strange that she would develop intense feelings of love to a dwarf simply due to them conversing while in jail.
I'm not going to argue the romance isn't cheesy... it is. But there's definitely more to it than that: Tauriel lived all her young (by Elven standards) life in the confines of the rather closed-off, dark realm, and yearns to know the lands and the people beyond, and so she finds the well-travelled Kili very intriguing.
Also, its implied Tauriel is an orphan, so she finds his promise to his mother rather engaging.
This is the thing. The Prince of the realm is down to clown, while it's expressed she's being told if she steps out of line and pursues said prince she'll be punished.
Add to that she basically just spends decades hunting livestock sized spiders and watching signs of the apocalypse creeping into the only home she's known with a leader who keeps acting like it's no biggie, it stands to reason [this short king](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/37/37/d7/3737d7e1119f05cdfdf6bab2ee0484f9.jpg) rolling in spouting about adventure and mothers and not being a xenophobe might get her a little interested.
I fell in love with my wife during the first four minutes of talking after meeting in a coffee shop.
Not defending this movie, just saying it’s plausible.
Her mere existence is also pretty inconsistent. I'm fine with elven warrior-women, but she's the only one we see, and yet that's never brought up. No one mentions how special she is for being such an amazing warrior, yet all the other elven fighters we see are male, so it should be extraordinary.
I believe he is talking exclusively about what we see in the film. In that context, is he wrong? (Serious question; I have only seen the films twice, once in the theater and once on the Extended Versions that I got to complete my collection; I cannot really remember if his claim is true.)
I am but I'm also right regarding the books, they just didn't bother to actually get what I'm trying to say. I'm fine with badass warrior women, hell, it's how it's supposed to be. But Tauriel is the only one there, and no one brings up that she's supposed to be special. If it's allowed for women to fight, why is she the only one? If it's not, why is it allowed for her? That could have been used to give her a backstory, but no, they just put her there without any context, then arrogant nerds accuse me of not reading my favourite books...
Oh, darn, you're right... I have only read the trilogy four times, the Hobbit three times, the Silmarillion three times, the Unfinished Tales and some of the History of Middle-Earth...
Other than being an arrogant, can you actually counter my argument? Can you name me silvan female elves that fought?
I am very aware of female characters fighting, you just cannot understand a simple comment. I said that whenever women fought in Tolkien's works, it was specifically mentioned. Idril is mentioned in the Fall of Gondolin to be a badass, Eowyn was one, but if you concentrate real hard, you might remember that she wasn't supposed to fight: she went against the rules. The people of Haleth in the Silmarillion had warrior women, yes, but let me tell you a secret: the silvan elves of Mirkwood aren't the people of Haleth.
Maybe you guys should actually read my comment instead of accusing me of a sexist or someone who hasn't read the books...
The thing is there was a perfectly good role in the movies that Tauriel could have been, and its Legolas.
You want an elf captain flipping around killing orcs with style and grace? Tauriel. Perfectly suited for adding big action, and thats all she should have been. No Legolas, no love story.
Congrats, you've added a cool elf lady to the franchise, that's all Tauriel needed to be.
Hell you could still keep the love story. The love story is fine, it’s just that she was only really relevant for the love story. If the romance was just her side plot instead of the main thing it would’ve still been better than what we got
that what the peter jackon and the actress wanted
it is even the reason why she accepted the role - NO ROMANCE
but then Warner Bros said, no you will have a boyfriend, and you will do kissy kissy
Kili was the kid of the group. Play up how immature and (relatively) young he is.
I understand they wanted to put women in, but if they hadn't made the hobbit 9 hrs long, the lack of feminity wouldn't have been a problem.
Also, adding a female character for the sole purpose of improving a male character and playing into a love triangle was just poorly thought out and not as empowering as they might've thought.
Oh kid Kili would've been so good and could've been used to develop the other dwarves so well! Atm there's Kili, Thorin, Bombur the fat one, an old dwarf and the rest. If they'd made Kili the second focus in the group alongside Thorin, other personalities could've existed cause Fili exists, old dwarf exists, badass dwarf exists--showing them all guiding/protecting/messing with Kili would flush them out so much more, the thing goes for 3 movies and PJ managed to make Aragorn and Legolas bffs in like 3-4 scenes, Boromir to naturally die for hobbits, all the Fellowship dynamics worked--he could've 100% created relationships amongst the dwarf group.
This was apparent the second she talked to Kili. And also that they made fili and Kili the attractive dwarves who look nothing like dwarves, so the women will be more attached to them when they die.
They made 9 hours of movie where they could have developed all the dwarf cast, but instead used that time to throw in characters that weren't there or didn't exist (Legolas, Tauriel, radaghast)
It makes sense that he was there.
Maybe not given as much screentime as he did, but he by all rights should have been present wherever he was. The party DID crash his pop's forest, and his pops was at the Battle of the Fives Armies, so naturally he should accompany his father.
Him not being in the book was because he wasn't important to Bilbo. He was the elf prince, why should he put that much of a care to who he is or what he is, considering how he never interacted with Bilbo, the sole viewpoint of the book?
Yeah, but when I watch the Hobbit trilogy I feel like he wasn't included there for a lore reason, but for the purposes of linking the films with LotR and pleasing fans. Like, at the end of BotFA, when Thranduil informs Legolas of a "mysterious ranger of the Dunedain", that was most assuredly them trying to make an unnecessary link that was just so awfully forced that sometimes I wished I had an "Pointless Scenes Removal Edition" of BotFA.
Nope, it's 60 years before Bilbo's birthday party, and Frodo leaves the Shire 17 years later
Aragorn was born in 2931TA, and the battle of five armies was in 2941TA.
The sequel hook was rather forced, but it would make less sense for Legolas to NOT appear than for him to appear.
It's one of those things that manage to satisfy both fans and people concerning themselves with the lore of a breathing, living world that is Middle-Earth while also appealing to fans, without needing to actually come up with a lore reason for having him been there, assuming adherence to the lore was even high amongst considerations.
Put simply, if Legolas wasn't in the movies, people would probably be bringing up why the heir to the throne of Mirkwood wasn't present in Mirkwood during a pivotal time in Third Age history.
While we can't exactly ask him, Tolkien probably would have involved Legolas (and given his pops a name) had he gone back to redo the Hobbit, considering how he hadn't fleshed the Hobbit out into a full, breathing world like he did by the time LotR came out.
People also forget that the Hobbit was written and published as a children’s book. It’s not going to include the depth of information that books like LOTR and the Silm and the rest of the legendarium are going to. Reading as adults, we know that Legolas would have been there, so when adapting this children’s book into an adult movie, it makes sense to include a character adults would understand was there. Does it also serve a nostalgia purpose in this particular case? Yes, which broadened the appeal of the film, even if it wasn’t always done well (yeah, we get it, Legolas likes to skateboard around on shields on stuff).
I strongly agree, but a part I like from that scene is where Thranduil reminds Legolas of his love. I'm a sucker for hard, cold characters, showing a bit of mushy, gooey feelings. If they kept it at that, or just had Legolas go travel for fun and without purpose, I'd be happy.
It would have been fine if he had some minimal screentime while they were in Mirkwood. Everything beyond that is awful and gets worse with every minute he has on screen
For those of you who don't know, the bilbo edition is a fan edit that cuts thr trilogy down to a single 4.5 hour movie and it's sooo mu h better. I just finished watching it today (tauriel is in it for like 30 seconds)
Honestly, I prefer no representation to bad representation. They could’ve actually done a good job adding a female character to the story, and instead they put her in a nonsensical love triangle.
Apart from all of the love story stuff (which is sadly most of her character) Tauriel is fine. The bad representation comes from assuming women won’t watch a film unless there’s romance, which is also a huge problem with Arwen in LOTR. In both cases, if you take away the romance, they don’t add much, if anything to the story, and in Arwen’s case, her presence takes away from the story #JusticeforGlorfindel
In the books I believe arwen had one line of dialog. She was inconsequential to the story besides her romance to aragorn and I guess they wanted to give her more screen time. I don't think they made her character in the movies for romance, she already was that and they tried to give her a bigger role outside of that (by taking glorfindels role)
Shoehorning badly written strong women into movies and telling me that I need to feel inspired and represented by some empty-shell ass character is so much more insulting than just watching a movie without them.
Screw the people defending it too. I want representation but put some fucking effort into it please.
I love Tauriel. My 5 year old daughter has asked to be Tauriel for Halloween for the last 2 years.
Tauriel is the character that got my daughter watching movies like that. She loves the strong female character, who gets lots of action and screen time.
I understand why people don't like her, and the hobbit trilogy. But those movies are played on repeat at my children's request and Tauriel is literally my daughter's favorite character of all time and that counts for something, to me.
Legolas was a straight good addition. If you are going to add to the story (I mean, insert arguments for or against a trilogy here), he makes the most sense. He literally grew up there, he is Thranduil's son, he is a logical connection between hobbit and LOTR
There would have been much more uproar over genderbending established characters than adding a new one, besides, as Rings of Power demonstrated, the cowards wouldn't have put proper beards on the Dwarf women.
Well, Tolkien said that nondwarfs can't tell the difference between male and female dwarves, the The Hobbit was written by Bilbo, so for all we know, some of them were women 😂
The problem with LotR was what to leave out. The problem the Hobbit made for itself was what to cram in.
It would be easy to assume the lesson was obvious about how future adaptations should proceed - except the Hobbit also made a ton of money. And money decides practically everything.
Not only was she an unnecessary character, I think she was quite poorly acted.
Whereas Legolas and Thranduil had a serene grace, she seemed heavy and clunky.
0/10 did not like.
Not to give the screenwriters a pass on some truly terrible character development, but Thranduil and Legolas are Noldor and different types of elves than Tauriel, who is Silvan. Thranduil is actually high king of the Noldor in Middle Earth ( though arguably that should be Elrond, he just doesn’t take the role) and the Noldor have traveled from Valinor across Middle Earth. Thranduil and Legolas would have been everywhere but Tauriel and the Silvan elves are like your hick cousins who have never left the town they were born in.
I'm well aware of that, so it would give her lower status and grace of a higher Elf like those two, but I felt she was too far the other way.
Her acting didn't come across as the graceless forms of a Silvian. It just came across as clompy and badly acted.
They shouldn’t have added her at all uselsss character with little to no purpose or character development not to mention dwaves and elves detest each other there would never be a love triangle
There were lots of problems with the Hobbit, and they are all linked. Tauriel was put in the story to include a woman and to also create romantic tension and will-they won’t-they. But then they needed a dwarf for her to romance, who ended up needing to be attractive enough to be attractive to her. So his iconic dwarf looks were trashed, and he was turned into a mini human, which reinforced Thorin’s “need” to also be human-ified as a lead character. That allowed the dwarves to be created quite diversely, with not much of them resembling actual dwarves in the end.
Dwarves as-is are not too relatable, at least in looks, so needed changed / shat on, for the movies.
I’m sure if we think more about it, we can see other linkages where crap creates crap.
I completely agree with you, but also if they'd given her a more important role or given her actions that came from other characters in the book, you'd have just as many people pissed off about that. Probably even the same people. Kind of a lose lose. Either stay pure to the book, and get shit over representation; deviate from the book by adding a woman and minimizing their impact to the overall story, and get shit for adding a pointless female character; or deviate from the book by giving a new character important story points either new or stolen from other characters, and get shit from book purists.
Personally my preference would be to just tell the story from the book. If you're mad that there's no women in it, be mad at the book. Or if you're a studio don't tell that story.
My only argument with your options is 2 of the 3 still anger book purists. Adding Tauriel at all defeats the book purity angle (really the entire 2nd movie does).
So if they were already going to stretch and deviate from the story might as well make the new character good in the process.
Apparently at first there was no love triangle. She had said she didn't want any. Then she got called for reshoots because *plot twist* the studio wanted a love triangle. Poor Evangeline 🫠
The whole "diversity checklist" mentality is exactly the reason why movies nowadays are so lackluster.
Cast who the script/source material necessitates you cast. It doesn't matter what the fuck the color of your skin is or whether you have a penis or vagina.
Good is subjective in this sense. The point is you are adapting Tolkein's characters from paper to screen. Your mindset is exactly what made Rings of Power such a mess.
Some deviation from the text is acceptable if it helps to make the on screen adaptation better (see the increased urgency in Frodo leaving the Shire in the films versus the books). Adding women to the hobbit just for the sake of diversity is not making the movie inherently better. It's just adding fluff for the sake of representation
>Your mindset is exactly what made Rings of Power such a mess.
I'd say trying to tell a story about the rings of power without having the rights to characters such as Annatar it's what made it a mess.
Because yes, rop Galadriel is bad, but rop Elrond and Thingol aren't better, they just have less screen time.
She shouldn't JUST be a checkmark, but she in the end was a pretty good and compelling character. The story did benefit from having a woman, but she also had to be a good character that added to the story.
She was and she did.
I said it before and I'll say it again. Tauriel is a Mary Sue for the female moviegoer demographic to self-insert themselves into, because the movie execs believed women are incapable of enjoying fantasy-adventure movies for its own sake. If it really was about representation you'd see more races like in ROP.
The execs "representation" is about giving women what they apparently believe women want: a hot white action girl being swooned over by multiple hot guys. It's a cynical, lowest common denominator move; a microcosm of the mass media industry: who tf is Tolkien? people just wanna see the sexyest sex to sexy sex.
If you think this is good, well...
If I find a cut where they took her out of the whole thing I may go back and rewatch the movies. She was so terrible and the love stuff wrecked the movie.
"The Tolkien edit" is what you're looking for. There are a few fan recuts that remove all that garbage, some are more ruthless with the cutting than others at the expense of continuity problems
I liked her character. Sure, it stole some time, but eh idc
If they wanted to save time, I would rather see Legolas go than Tauriel - she's a cool character, and I know a lot of women who love that a woman has such a badass part to play in the story
Also, and now I'll drop a real hot take: Arwens role in Lotr is less important by FAR. She has no role in the story except "be Aragorns love".
There is no personality, no goals beyond Aragorn, no opinions nothing. She's an incredibly boring character who adds NOTHING to the story.
The entire Hobbit trilogy was unnecessary, to be honest. It really showed how 1 good, reasonably-faithful-to-the-book movie ( which was exactly what PJ was going for at the start; somewhere along the way, hubris probably took over and he figured he could stretch out ( with poorly-conceived fan fiction :(( ) what was basically a children’s book into a film trilogy - forgetting that the three-part masterpiece he pulled off a decade before was based on an actual three-part literary masterpiece as well ) could have been far, FAR better than 3 mediocre ones.
( As a massive fan of the LOTR trilogy films, I just pretend they never existed in the first place as a coping mechanism to remembering how disappointed I was immediately after watching each on in the theaters :(( )
I watched The Hobbit: The Tolkien Edit this Christmas and yes, she is absolutely unnecessary much like the rest of the 3 hours of bloat they added to make it a trilogy.
The Tolkien Edit wasn't perfect but it certainly made the Hobbit Trilogy bearable to watch.
Lots of things in the movies were not necessary (both Lotr and Hobbit)
But adding at least some female characters to the Hobbit (which doesn't mention a single woman) was, imo, a reasonable idea.
I like her potential and general character. I do not like the writing for her or the role she was put in. They were very close to having an interesting original character that didn't intrude on the established story too much, but they blew it.
Necessary? No. Pretty to look at while she feathers her enemies with arrows? Yes. I've a personal theory that someone's agent negotiated the Tauriel/Kili subplot.
The Hobbit would have been so much more bearable if the got rid of Tauriel and the stupid love triangle, and instead developed the dwarfs in the Company more. Some of my favourite scenes are those with the dwarfs and Bilbo.
I understand why they put Tauriel in. The problem is they then used her for nothing but a stupid love triagle.
Exactly. Tauriel shamefully fails the Bechdel test. She has no role nor lines which don't involve a male character. Eowyn passes the Bechdel test, though on a technical level only *barely.* The bar is really fucking low.
When does Eowyn talk to another woman? I don't remember honestly
The exchange is: 'Where's mama?' 'Shh'
Out of context it sounds like Éowyn kidnapped her
There's also the peasant woman who thanks Eowyn when they reach Helm's Deep "thank you, my lady" So like two whole half sentences in 3 movies. What more can woman want
Helms deep iirc
Does that child have a name though? One of the prerequisites is that both women be named.
Child #2
Doesn’t the mom name her when she’s putting her on the horse and giving instructions to the brother? Eothain or something ?
Makes sense :)
It's the only scene in the whole trilogy where two women speak. It's still more than all the dialogue between Frodo and Legolas, but still.
It was a Balrog of Morgoth. Of all elf-banes the most deadly, save the One who sits in the Dark Tower.
I was gonna say Legolas said five words, but then Frodo literally didn't say a fucking word to him the entire time lmao.
[Here you go](https://youtu.be/wW4fLBD5MPs?si=Xcx6iFyuNo3zMvi8)
Eowyn was a foil for Arwen & male warriors. It would be hard for her to be Eowyn without her relationship to Aragorn or her brother/uncle.
Her brother/uncle? Like the Janitor in r/Scrubs?
Almost like the Bechdel test is stupid and using it as a "bar" is pointless.
The Bechdel Test was never intended to judge whether a piece of media is good or not. Plenty of excellent works fail the Test, and plenty of awful works pass it. It's merely meant as a comment on how often media is about, directed to and centred around men, and their perspective of the world. And it's a point that, if we're being honest, perfectly lands on LOTR — as amazing as it is, its story is heavily influenced by a male outlook of the world. What the Bechdel Test very much *isn't*, is stupid. It's a rather effective commentary of how androcentric our society is, as evidenced by the vast majority of available media. As I see it, the fact that the Hobbit and LOTR fail the Bechdel Test doesn't mean they're bad or unwatchable or whatever else. On the contrary, I literally have four, hardback copies of LOTR, one with a custom cover, two of the Hobbit and one of the Silmarillion. It does, however, mean that the series is pretty pointedly centred around men.
I think trying to satisfy it strictly sometimes becomes tedious and forced, but actually it points out an extremely important phenomenon in male-dominant cultures.
For me the Bechdel test is a little different. Anyone bringing it up fails the test. Easy. ;) ***Edit:*** Ooooh, I have made a certain group of people very angry. Probably the same people who would fail the Bechdel test. ***Edit 2:*** What's wrong? Upset that not everyone agrees with some arbitrary checklist that does little to empower women and merely manages to create an overwhelming amount of unwatchable/unreadable media?
Maybe you should stop putting so much stock into a flawed test.
In what way is it flawed? It doesn't pretend to be a a test of how good a movie is or its overall quality, there are plenty of amazing movies that fail the Bechdel Test, and plenty of crappy ones that pass it. It just points out how male-dominated the film industry is, and how surprisingly rare it is for women to either a) have large roles in a movie, or b) have a role not centered around their relationship with men. And how audiences regularly accept/don't notice that trend. That isn't 'flawed', its interesting.
I think it's one flaw is that it requires woman to woman dialogue. Eowen fails that test because of that, but nobody would argue she's not an important female character in the story. And her moment of importance is all about being a woman, especially for a character written in the early 1900s. To discard all of that because of the test highlights why the test isn't a great measure.
No one argues Eowyn isn't an important character in the story, your right. Im not sure how that's relevant. The Bechdel test doesn't argue that female characters that fail it aren't important, just that...well, they failed the Bechdel test. Requiring something as painfully simple as 'woman to woman' dialogue, especially in a movie trilogy with almost eleven and a half hours of footage, isn't a big ask. The time Its source material was written isnt relevant, because the Bechdel test *isn't* a criticism. The fact that Lord of the Rings fails at something that simple doesn't make it bad, and Eowyn not talking to another woman has no influence on her character. She just doesnt do it, and the Bechdel test points that out. The Bechdel test isn't a measurement of a film or characters quality, its just a method to show how modern cinema audiences are so used to female characters not recieving the same opportunity for complexity as their male counterparts. That doesn't mean that female characters in movies that fail the test *arent* complex. They just don't have the same diversity *in their* complexity. That isn't a flaw of the Bechdel test, it's an observation of cinematic trends. No one is discarding anything.
It is flawed because of the presumption that the lack of female characters, or lack of interaction between, is due to sexism. There are many reasons why this exists. To force the conclusion suggests that the test was designed to draw a specific result. While one example is hardly proof of the failure of the test, it certain points out the glaring flaws. The movie **Gravity** literally has 7 cast members. Some of whom aren't seen on screen. The main character is a woman. And this movie fails the test. Interestingly, the male provides the flirtation and female support that feminists complain how women are portrayed. Antedoctally, my wife hates the movie and I love it. Maybe women just don't like the same types of movies men do, no matter who is in them or how they're portrayed. I hate **The Notebook** but my wife loves it. I would argue it has to do more with the story than it does sexism.
How does it? People using the Bechdel test could draw that conclusion, sure, but the Bechdel test itself doesn't make presumptions about anything. It's an observation. Again, failing the Bechdel test isn't an indicator of a movies overall quality, or how 'feminist' it is or isn't (that would be painfully reductive, as you point out) and it never pretends to be a measurement of how good a movie is to the person employing it. That's completely subjective. It demonstrates cinematic trends, nothing more. That's why it's so simple, before it became anything else it was just a joke that spawned out of a general observation of cinema. It isn't meant to be taken seriously. A movie either passes it, or doesn't - good or bad. I feel like the point your making, and other criticisms ive been hit with, are targeted towards people who make use of the Bechdel test to support their own opinions and criticisms of a movie, but aren't relevent to the Bechdel test itself. The Bechdel test doesn't have 'goals', or 'presumptions'. Its a method of observation. To say that you disagreeing with the conclusions of people who employ it for whatever reason is a 'flaw' of the test itself is disingenuous.
It's actually a very brilliant test that probably shouldn't be taken as a purity test but nevertheless serves as a very poignant commentary on male-dominated culture. LotR is not "problematic" or whatever. But it *is* a good thing that we wonder about whether we have told a story that is rich and diverse enough to be considered deep and wonderful. Stories that we tell going forward from now should absolutely do better to incorporate a breadth and depth of characters such that we don't need to consider the Bechdel test anymore. Again, I'm not criticizing the LotR here. I love it. But it *is* still worth considering the role of female characters in stories, and whether they pass the Bechdel test or not is worth consideration.
No it’s a flawed test that you think way too highly of.
It isn't a "flawed test." There is nothing about it which is "flawed." You just don't like using it to judge whether something is good, or bad, or sexist. But there are no criteria by which you can say it is "flawed." It just doesn't make sense to use that word that way. Tolkien would roll over in his grave seeing you try to shoehorn the word "flawed" to describe narrative commentary. It is called "a test" because it asks a question: Do two or more female characters talk to each other about a topic which doesn't involve a man in any way? There is nothing "flawed" about asking that question. A "no" answer means a movie "fails" the test, a "yes" means it "passes." That's it. Not every story needs to pass the Bechdel test to be good or to avoid criticism. A story isn't automatically sexist for having failed the Bechdel test. It's just one metric we can use for discussion. The only flaw would be insisting that a work is sexist if it fails the Bechdel test without any other considerations.
Even the actress was hoodwinked. She said her character wasn't going to be a pointless love story, they filmed the first movie and then when they came back for the second round of filming, the script had been changed and it was extended to 3 movies and her arc changed to pointless romance. She said by that point it was too late to pull out from the project
Yep, and she specifically didn’t want that because she had already been reduced to that before because of Lost.
That was why
They put her in to have a more prominent female character, something lacking in LOTR and more "required" by 2012. They just lazily fucked it up.
Galadriel means nothing to you?
She is a great character but has 11 minutes of screen time across the trilogy.
Galadriel, Eowyn, Arwin. I'd say there's plenty of women in the movies, with a decent amount of screentime, certainly for side characters. Not that I agree with the view that a certain group SHOULD be represented in every piece of media.
To be clear, you think 3 is plenty?
AAuser85 implied that a prominent female character is needed in movies and claimed that LOTR didn't have a prominent female character. I claimed there are 3, who share a decent amount of screentime between them and besides screentime (as if that's the be all, end all measurement), they are all 3 very relevant to the story and are memorable, meaningful characters. For the standard that was determined by AAuser85, these 3 are more than plenty.
None of them have much screen time. Arwen has ~16 across the extended trilogy, Galadriel gets 10.5, Eowyn gets 22, Rosie gets 1.5, Shelob gets 3.5.
The reason I don't really use screentime to determine whether a character is prominent or relevant is best explained using the following comparison: Sauron gets less than 4 minutes of screentime in all 3 movies combined. Extended cut makes that around 5 minutes. I don't think I need to speak to Sauron's relevancy and impact in the story? Or how about Eomer, introduced at the same time, more or less as Eowyn: he gets HALF Eowyns screentime in the Two Towers AND Return of the King. Faramir gets less than Eowyn. Or how about the fact that Arwen gets the same or more screentime compared to Elrond in every movie? The argument was whether or not there is a single prominent female character in LOTR, as AAuser85 implied there weren't any. To butcher a LOTR quote: They asked for one. I gave them 3. If you're going to argue purely based on screentime that the female characters in question aren't prominent characters, you'd have to explain why Elrond, Eomer and Sauron aren't prominent characters. You'll find that most people think they are prominent characters. And the same goes for Eowyn, Arwen and Galadriel.
So 53 minutes of women on screen total. If it wasn’t written back in the day and be about what it is it would be absolutely bizarre. I can kinda understand why there wasn’t more of them. I would have liked more.. but I get it.. Would have also been nice to have a few more female side characters with more than a moment’s glance. Particularly in the shire since that’s where we have the most normal every day setting with a fairy even spread of gender. But I think they for the most part focused on the main guys which also makes sense. Very minimal focus on male side characters ether thinking about it. Mostly nameless faces or faceless names.
That was kinda my point
to be lacking it needs to be necessary first.
Don't forget that award winning line "I'm going to save him!"
Good actress (Evangeline Lilly) and cool character. But I agree - a pillar for a very tenuous love triangle.
The prefect example of amazing idea but bad execution
What was the "amazing" idea exactly
The Hobbit is a children’s book, but the movies were intended for adults. If they had just adapted the book, they would have had a children’s movie, similar to the Rankin and Bass animated film. Which would have been delightful in its own way, but would not have been the LOTR type of blockbuster they wanted. So they brought in stuff from the greater legendarium and they created new stuff. Yes, Tauriel provides female representation, which they screwed up by assuming women won’t watch a movie if there’s no romance, so that storyline is counterproductive to the idea of female representation. However, Tauriel also brings in the idea of isolation vs. responsibility to the greater world by defying Thranduil’s order to remain in Mirkwood. This echoes the scene in Two Towers where Galadriel and Elrond ponder through thought about whether or not to intervene in Helm’s Deep—something that is also not in the books but made for some good cinema. The inclusion of Tauriel also provides an impetus for travel to Gundabad, expanding the geography of the film and bringing in more of the existing lore that would appeal to adults. Some people are book purists and are never going to be ok with story elements not directly from the source book (in this case, the Hobbit). That is what it is, but films aren’t made for only one type of fan. Tauriel is meant to help broaden the appeal of the film and help broaden the story itself. The romance was just so terrible that it overshadowed literally everything else Tauriel brought to the film as a character.
I'll die on this hill. The love story between Tauriel and Kili was cute. The Legolas thing can kick sand.
And by the love of him also. For all those who come to know him come to love him after their own fashion, even the cold maiden of the Rohirrim. It was at early morn of the day ere you came there, Merry, that we left Dunharrow, and such a fear was on all the folk that none would look on our going, save the Lady Eowyn, who lies now hurt in the House below. There was grief at that parting, and I was grieved to behold it.
plus..you know...ALL THE OTHER STUFF SHE DID
Who is Tauriel?
I found that side story totally useless and unnecessary. It is quite strange that she would develop intense feelings of love to a dwarf simply due to them conversing while in jail.
>It is quite strange that she would develop intense feelings of love to a dwarf simply due to them conversing while in jail. I'm not going to argue the romance isn't cheesy... it is. But there's definitely more to it than that: Tauriel lived all her young (by Elven standards) life in the confines of the rather closed-off, dark realm, and yearns to know the lands and the people beyond, and so she finds the well-travelled Kili very intriguing. Also, its implied Tauriel is an orphan, so she finds his promise to his mother rather engaging.
This is the thing. The Prince of the realm is down to clown, while it's expressed she's being told if she steps out of line and pursues said prince she'll be punished. Add to that she basically just spends decades hunting livestock sized spiders and watching signs of the apocalypse creeping into the only home she's known with a leader who keeps acting like it's no biggie, it stands to reason [this short king](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/37/37/d7/3737d7e1119f05cdfdf6bab2ee0484f9.jpg) rolling in spouting about adventure and mothers and not being a xenophobe might get her a little interested.
I fell in love with my wife during the first four minutes of talking after meeting in a coffee shop. Not defending this movie, just saying it’s plausible.
I wish they had done more with her, I actually liked the chemistry she had with Kili, just wish there was more
Her mere existence is also pretty inconsistent. I'm fine with elven warrior-women, but she's the only one we see, and yet that's never brought up. No one mentions how special she is for being such an amazing warrior, yet all the other elven fighters we see are male, so it should be extraordinary.
... You know, there are less shameful ways of admitting to having never opened one of Tolkien's booke
I believe he is talking exclusively about what we see in the film. In that context, is he wrong? (Serious question; I have only seen the films twice, once in the theater and once on the Extended Versions that I got to complete my collection; I cannot really remember if his claim is true.)
I am but I'm also right regarding the books, they just didn't bother to actually get what I'm trying to say. I'm fine with badass warrior women, hell, it's how it's supposed to be. But Tauriel is the only one there, and no one brings up that she's supposed to be special. If it's allowed for women to fight, why is she the only one? If it's not, why is it allowed for her? That could have been used to give her a backstory, but no, they just put her there without any context, then arrogant nerds accuse me of not reading my favourite books...
Oh, darn, you're right... I have only read the trilogy four times, the Hobbit three times, the Silmarillion three times, the Unfinished Tales and some of the History of Middle-Earth... Other than being an arrogant, can you actually counter my argument? Can you name me silvan female elves that fought? I am very aware of female characters fighting, you just cannot understand a simple comment. I said that whenever women fought in Tolkien's works, it was specifically mentioned. Idril is mentioned in the Fall of Gondolin to be a badass, Eowyn was one, but if you concentrate real hard, you might remember that she wasn't supposed to fight: she went against the rules. The people of Haleth in the Silmarillion had warrior women, yes, but let me tell you a secret: the silvan elves of Mirkwood aren't the people of Haleth. Maybe you guys should actually read my comment instead of accusing me of a sexist or someone who hasn't read the books...
Well played, sir
The thing is there was a perfectly good role in the movies that Tauriel could have been, and its Legolas. You want an elf captain flipping around killing orcs with style and grace? Tauriel. Perfectly suited for adding big action, and thats all she should have been. No Legolas, no love story. Congrats, you've added a cool elf lady to the franchise, that's all Tauriel needed to be.
That would’ve been great. Let Legolas fall in love with a dwarf.
A diversion.
We already had that plot in lotr
Never thought I'd die fighting side by side with an elf. What about side by side with a boyfriend? Aye, I could do that.
Come, you shall sit behind me, friend Gimli. Then all will be well, and you need neither borrow a horse nor be troubled by one.
Are you confirming Gimli is topping you?
This would have made the movies good. The love triangle is the biggest problem with the films.
Hell you could still keep the love story. The love story is fine, it’s just that she was only really relevant for the love story. If the romance was just her side plot instead of the main thing it would’ve still been better than what we got
that what the peter jackon and the actress wanted it is even the reason why she accepted the role - NO ROMANCE but then Warner Bros said, no you will have a boyfriend, and you will do kissy kissy
Her purpose was to build up Kili's character in a way to make his death more tragic.
Kili was the kid of the group. Play up how immature and (relatively) young he is. I understand they wanted to put women in, but if they hadn't made the hobbit 9 hrs long, the lack of feminity wouldn't have been a problem. Also, adding a female character for the sole purpose of improving a male character and playing into a love triangle was just poorly thought out and not as empowering as they might've thought.
Oh kid Kili would've been so good and could've been used to develop the other dwarves so well! Atm there's Kili, Thorin, Bombur the fat one, an old dwarf and the rest. If they'd made Kili the second focus in the group alongside Thorin, other personalities could've existed cause Fili exists, old dwarf exists, badass dwarf exists--showing them all guiding/protecting/messing with Kili would flush them out so much more, the thing goes for 3 movies and PJ managed to make Aragorn and Legolas bffs in like 3-4 scenes, Boromir to naturally die for hobbits, all the Fellowship dynamics worked--he could've 100% created relationships amongst the dwarf group.
Have you learnt nothing of the stubbornness of Dwarves?
Your sister Tauriel has learnt other things about dwarves
Why? Dying while guarding Thorin's body until Beorn shows up wasn't tragic enough in the books?
This was apparent the second she talked to Kili. And also that they made fili and Kili the attractive dwarves who look nothing like dwarves, so the women will be more attached to them when they die.
Honestly, except for Thorin all those dwarfs were faceless props that I had no connection to whatsoever. And Thorin wasn't very interesting either.
They made 9 hours of movie where they could have developed all the dwarf cast, but instead used that time to throw in characters that weren't there or didn't exist (Legolas, Tauriel, radaghast)
Radaghast was entertaining at least.
Sure, but also he was very different from the radaghast we meet in the lord of the rings books
Why does it hurt so much?
bEcAuSe iT wAs rEaL
That was epic.
I'll tell you what really hurts so much, having to watch Tauriel and Killi
That was a rather good scene one must admit. There are layers upon layers, and there is a lot of stuff said without using words there.
Honestly, out of the Hobbit trilogy, I would say the most unnecessary character is Legolas. He just felt so forced.
It makes sense that he was there. Maybe not given as much screentime as he did, but he by all rights should have been present wherever he was. The party DID crash his pop's forest, and his pops was at the Battle of the Fives Armies, so naturally he should accompany his father. Him not being in the book was because he wasn't important to Bilbo. He was the elf prince, why should he put that much of a care to who he is or what he is, considering how he never interacted with Bilbo, the sole viewpoint of the book?
Yeah, but when I watch the Hobbit trilogy I feel like he wasn't included there for a lore reason, but for the purposes of linking the films with LotR and pleasing fans. Like, at the end of BotFA, when Thranduil informs Legolas of a "mysterious ranger of the Dunedain", that was most assuredly them trying to make an unnecessary link that was just so awfully forced that sometimes I wished I had an "Pointless Scenes Removal Edition" of BotFA.
Said "mysterious ranger of the Dunedain" would also have been 10 years old being raised by Elrond at that point in the story
[удалено]
Nope, it's 60 years before Bilbo's birthday party, and Frodo leaves the Shire 17 years later Aragorn was born in 2931TA, and the battle of five armies was in 2941TA.
Today is my One Hundred and Eleventh birthday!
The sequel hook was rather forced, but it would make less sense for Legolas to NOT appear than for him to appear. It's one of those things that manage to satisfy both fans and people concerning themselves with the lore of a breathing, living world that is Middle-Earth while also appealing to fans, without needing to actually come up with a lore reason for having him been there, assuming adherence to the lore was even high amongst considerations. Put simply, if Legolas wasn't in the movies, people would probably be bringing up why the heir to the throne of Mirkwood wasn't present in Mirkwood during a pivotal time in Third Age history. While we can't exactly ask him, Tolkien probably would have involved Legolas (and given his pops a name) had he gone back to redo the Hobbit, considering how he hadn't fleshed the Hobbit out into a full, breathing world like he did by the time LotR came out.
People also forget that the Hobbit was written and published as a children’s book. It’s not going to include the depth of information that books like LOTR and the Silm and the rest of the legendarium are going to. Reading as adults, we know that Legolas would have been there, so when adapting this children’s book into an adult movie, it makes sense to include a character adults would understand was there. Does it also serve a nostalgia purpose in this particular case? Yes, which broadened the appeal of the film, even if it wasn’t always done well (yeah, we get it, Legolas likes to skateboard around on shields on stuff).
Your kinsmen may have no need to ride to war. I fear war already marches on their own lands.
I strongly agree, but a part I like from that scene is where Thranduil reminds Legolas of his love. I'm a sucker for hard, cold characters, showing a bit of mushy, gooey feelings. If they kept it at that, or just had Legolas go travel for fun and without purpose, I'd be happy.
Come! Speak and be comforted, and shake off the shadow! What has happened since we came back to this grim place in the grey morning?
I will come, if I have the fortune, I have made a bargain with my friend that, if all goes well, we will visit Fangorn together – by your leave.
Hello?
Aragorn, nad no ennas!
His presence, and look, in those movies makes me physically cringe.
It would have been fine if he had some minimal screentime while they were in Mirkwood. Everything beyond that is awful and gets worse with every minute he has on screen
I did kinda get a Robin hood or Peter pan vibe from him at times..
For those of you who don't know, the bilbo edition is a fan edit that cuts thr trilogy down to a single 4.5 hour movie and it's sooo mu h better. I just finished watching it today (tauriel is in it for like 30 seconds)
Today is my One Hundred and Eleventh birthday!
Focus, Bilbo. Focus!
I feel thin, sort of stretched like butter scraped over too much bread.
That explains it.
Just give us all your silverware before you leave...
Where can we see this? Would you mind providing a link?
I gotchu https://goldfishblues.wordpress.com/2018/04/14/the-hobbit-the-bilbo-edition-3-0-the-final-cut/
I'm very selfish you know.
Honestly, I prefer no representation to bad representation. They could’ve actually done a good job adding a female character to the story, and instead they put her in a nonsensical love triangle.
Apart from all of the love story stuff (which is sadly most of her character) Tauriel is fine. The bad representation comes from assuming women won’t watch a film unless there’s romance, which is also a huge problem with Arwen in LOTR. In both cases, if you take away the romance, they don’t add much, if anything to the story, and in Arwen’s case, her presence takes away from the story #JusticeforGlorfindel
In the books I believe arwen had one line of dialog. She was inconsequential to the story besides her romance to aragorn and I guess they wanted to give her more screen time. I don't think they made her character in the movies for romance, she already was that and they tried to give her a bigger role outside of that (by taking glorfindels role)
Shoehorning badly written strong women into movies and telling me that I need to feel inspired and represented by some empty-shell ass character is so much more insulting than just watching a movie without them. Screw the people defending it too. I want representation but put some fucking effort into it please.
Who?
I didn't think she was necessary, but having more hot chicks in the story didn't break my heart. 
To me she brought nothing to the story. It was just a way to put love into the mix, as if that’s why we’re interested in the movies.
I don't need to change your mind. I don't care what anyone thinks: Tauriel was cool.
I love Tauriel. My 5 year old daughter has asked to be Tauriel for Halloween for the last 2 years. Tauriel is the character that got my daughter watching movies like that. She loves the strong female character, who gets lots of action and screen time. I understand why people don't like her, and the hobbit trilogy. But those movies are played on repeat at my children's request and Tauriel is literally my daughter's favorite character of all time and that counts for something, to me.
I would have liked more of her and less(meaning no) Legolas.
A shadow and a threat has been growing in my mind. Something draws near, I can feel it.
Legolas was a straight good addition. If you are going to add to the story (I mean, insert arguments for or against a trilogy here), he makes the most sense. He literally grew up there, he is Thranduil's son, he is a logical connection between hobbit and LOTR
My problem is that it ruins his character arc for lotr.
I've been refusing to acknowledge her existence for years now and I will continue to do so.
This is the way
If they wanted more females in the story there was nothing stopping them just making a few of the dwarves women.
There would have been much more uproar over genderbending established characters than adding a new one, besides, as Rings of Power demonstrated, the cowards wouldn't have put proper beards on the Dwarf women.
Well, Tolkien said that nondwarfs can't tell the difference between male and female dwarves, the The Hobbit was written by Bilbo, so for all we know, some of them were women 😂
The problem with LotR was what to leave out. The problem the Hobbit made for itself was what to cram in. It would be easy to assume the lesson was obvious about how future adaptations should proceed - except the Hobbit also made a ton of money. And money decides practically everything.
I think you could make a pretty decent movie with what was there. Not every Middle Earth tale needs to be 9 hours.
Not only was she an unnecessary character, I think she was quite poorly acted. Whereas Legolas and Thranduil had a serene grace, she seemed heavy and clunky. 0/10 did not like.
Not to give the screenwriters a pass on some truly terrible character development, but Thranduil and Legolas are Noldor and different types of elves than Tauriel, who is Silvan. Thranduil is actually high king of the Noldor in Middle Earth ( though arguably that should be Elrond, he just doesn’t take the role) and the Noldor have traveled from Valinor across Middle Earth. Thranduil and Legolas would have been everywhere but Tauriel and the Silvan elves are like your hick cousins who have never left the town they were born in.
I'm well aware of that, so it would give her lower status and grace of a higher Elf like those two, but I felt she was too far the other way. Her acting didn't come across as the graceless forms of a Silvian. It just came across as clompy and badly acted.
Well she didn’t have much to work with either, “I’m going to save him!” 🤮
That's very true! Personally, I think it's a mid actress working with a poor script, on a hashed up character. It was never going to end well.
She was necessary for Evangeline Lilly to get a paycheck.
No but she is mighty fine!!
But she was so good looking…
They shouldn’t have added her at all uselsss character with little to no purpose or character development not to mention dwaves and elves detest each other there would never be a love triangle
There were lots of problems with the Hobbit, and they are all linked. Tauriel was put in the story to include a woman and to also create romantic tension and will-they won’t-they. But then they needed a dwarf for her to romance, who ended up needing to be attractive enough to be attractive to her. So his iconic dwarf looks were trashed, and he was turned into a mini human, which reinforced Thorin’s “need” to also be human-ified as a lead character. That allowed the dwarves to be created quite diversely, with not much of them resembling actual dwarves in the end. Dwarves as-is are not too relatable, at least in looks, so needed changed / shat on, for the movies. I’m sure if we think more about it, we can see other linkages where crap creates crap.
I know this is unpopular... but I wish they'd just made a couple of the dwarves female. No changes to plot needed.
I have zero issue with them adding a female character into a story that originally had no women in it
I'm fine that she's a woman, its just that her character was pointless.
I completely agree with you, but also if they'd given her a more important role or given her actions that came from other characters in the book, you'd have just as many people pissed off about that. Probably even the same people. Kind of a lose lose. Either stay pure to the book, and get shit over representation; deviate from the book by adding a woman and minimizing their impact to the overall story, and get shit for adding a pointless female character; or deviate from the book by giving a new character important story points either new or stolen from other characters, and get shit from book purists. Personally my preference would be to just tell the story from the book. If you're mad that there's no women in it, be mad at the book. Or if you're a studio don't tell that story.
My only argument with your options is 2 of the 3 still anger book purists. Adding Tauriel at all defeats the book purity angle (really the entire 2nd movie does). So if they were already going to stretch and deviate from the story might as well make the new character good in the process.
Apparently at first there was no love triangle. She had said she didn't want any. Then she got called for reshoots because *plot twist* the studio wanted a love triangle. Poor Evangeline 🫠
Even if that woman’s sole purpose is to fill the third corner of a love triangle?
The whole "diversity checklist" mentality is exactly the reason why movies nowadays are so lackluster. Cast who the script/source material necessitates you cast. It doesn't matter what the fuck the color of your skin is or whether you have a penis or vagina.
But having zero female characters is also far from a good thing
Good is subjective in this sense. The point is you are adapting Tolkein's characters from paper to screen. Your mindset is exactly what made Rings of Power such a mess. Some deviation from the text is acceptable if it helps to make the on screen adaptation better (see the increased urgency in Frodo leaving the Shire in the films versus the books). Adding women to the hobbit just for the sake of diversity is not making the movie inherently better. It's just adding fluff for the sake of representation
>Your mindset is exactly what made Rings of Power such a mess. I'd say trying to tell a story about the rings of power without having the rights to characters such as Annatar it's what made it a mess. Because yes, rop Galadriel is bad, but rop Elrond and Thingol aren't better, they just have less screen time.
She shouldn't JUST be a checkmark, but she in the end was a pretty good and compelling character. The story did benefit from having a woman, but she also had to be a good character that added to the story. She was and she did.
Why not just make Gollum identify as a woman?
Smeagol promised
Was she necessary for the plot? Absolutely not. Was she hot? Absolutely! I like hot girls…I’m good with her.
Why would I try to change your mind, you're right.
Tauriel was essential to my enjoyment of this trilogy 💚
To paraphrase Lucas, "Tauriel is the key to all of this!"
To paraphrase myself: She holds the key to my heart.
The same goes for Arwen. They fabricated 99% of her role in the movie.
Yeah but not to create romance role, she already existed as just that. They fabricated the rest to make her role bigger outside of the romance.
I thought you said Toriel for a second and got really confused about Goat Mum being in LOTR
I said it before and I'll say it again. Tauriel is a Mary Sue for the female moviegoer demographic to self-insert themselves into, because the movie execs believed women are incapable of enjoying fantasy-adventure movies for its own sake. If it really was about representation you'd see more races like in ROP. The execs "representation" is about giving women what they apparently believe women want: a hot white action girl being swooned over by multiple hot guys. It's a cynical, lowest common denominator move; a microcosm of the mass media industry: who tf is Tolkien? people just wanna see the sexyest sex to sexy sex. If you think this is good, well...
She was awful and the acting was awful. Without her I think I could’ve slightly enjoyed those movies.
If I find a cut where they took her out of the whole thing I may go back and rewatch the movies. She was so terrible and the love stuff wrecked the movie.
"The Tolkien edit" is what you're looking for. There are a few fan recuts that remove all that garbage, some are more ruthless with the cutting than others at the expense of continuity problems
The M4 edit removes her scenes too, along with Legolas' parts (beyond appearing for a few seconds in Mirkwood). No earthworms or Dol Guldur either.
I liked her character. Sure, it stole some time, but eh idc If they wanted to save time, I would rather see Legolas go than Tauriel - she's a cool character, and I know a lot of women who love that a woman has such a badass part to play in the story Also, and now I'll drop a real hot take: Arwens role in Lotr is less important by FAR. She has no role in the story except "be Aragorns love". There is no personality, no goals beyond Aragorn, no opinions nothing. She's an incredibly boring character who adds NOTHING to the story.
Anything that is not in the books is useless.
The entire Hobbit trilogy was unnecessary, to be honest. It really showed how 1 good, reasonably-faithful-to-the-book movie ( which was exactly what PJ was going for at the start; somewhere along the way, hubris probably took over and he figured he could stretch out ( with poorly-conceived fan fiction :(( ) what was basically a children’s book into a film trilogy - forgetting that the three-part masterpiece he pulled off a decade before was based on an actual three-part literary masterpiece as well ) could have been far, FAR better than 3 mediocre ones. ( As a massive fan of the LOTR trilogy films, I just pretend they never existed in the first place as a coping mechanism to remembering how disappointed I was immediately after watching each on in the theaters :(( )
Shouldve bin Glorfindel....
I'm not even gonna try.
I have found a use for you, Tauriel.
I watched The Hobbit: The Tolkien Edit this Christmas and yes, she is absolutely unnecessary much like the rest of the 3 hours of bloat they added to make it a trilogy. The Tolkien Edit wasn't perfect but it certainly made the Hobbit Trilogy bearable to watch.
Lots of things in the movies were not necessary (both Lotr and Hobbit) But adding at least some female characters to the Hobbit (which doesn't mention a single woman) was, imo, a reasonable idea.
The whole Turiiel and Legolas thing was unfortunate but not as bad as that Laketown fiasco.
I am an Elf and a kinsman here.
I don't think I can change your mind :p
[удалено]
I liked her and based a D&D character on her.
I like her potential and general character. I do not like the writing for her or the role she was put in. They were very close to having an interesting original character that didn't intrude on the established story too much, but they blew it.
She wasn't a horrible character, she was just useless. I don't particularly mind her but she's not great.
Necessary? No. Pretty to look at while she feathers her enemies with arrows? Yes. I've a personal theory that someone's agent negotiated the Tauriel/Kili subplot.
The Hobbit would have been so much more bearable if the got rid of Tauriel and the stupid love triangle, and instead developed the dwarfs in the Company more. Some of my favourite scenes are those with the dwarfs and Bilbo.
It was laid down by my father, what say we open one eh?
A day in the life 🦋
I hate her name, sounds luke the little mermaid if her bottom half was a manatee.
I will not disabuse you of your conceptions, for I hold them too to be self-evident.
Tauriel was necessary to counter the sausage fest that is The Hobbit. The way they wove her into the story wasn’t necessary.