[polishgenius]

The only thing that I liked about that trailer was the voice of Smaug. The rest looks dreadful. The best bits of the first film (against my expectation) were the quieter, slower moments, and Jackson seems to be doing everything he can to avoid having any of those in the second. They might as well have got Michael Bay to direct it.

[Macros]

Yeah, not enamoured with that trailer. Too much going on, the over top legoland involvement, abusing one of my favourite scenes (the barrels)

[QuickTidal]

Traveller, on 01 October 2013 - 08:27 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 01 October 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

Traveller, on 01 October 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

I was looking forward to this... until I read some of Jackson's comments. Like how they've introduced the female, 'ninja-like' elf to add a female character (when it's a blatant excuse for a female Legoland.)

In his defense, the lack of female characters in both LOTR and THE HOBBIT don't read well to female audiences (see: Arwen's beefed up role in the LOTR trilogy)...especially considering how many females are present and fornt-and-center in THE SILMARILLION...so I don't think that adding a beefed up female Elven warrior is a bad idea at all...especially because it's not hard to imagine that one or more of the Elven guards in Thranduil's hidden city would have been female...so having one present and in the forefront of this version of the tale allows not only a balancing of a pretty male-centric story, but also it appears (VIA what looks like a forbidden relationship between Legolas and Tauriel) that her presence is such that it will help visually illustrate Thranduil's phobia of the outside world encroaching on what he's built and secured. He can't have someone upsetting that balance by distracting his son from what I assume will be his drive to see Legolas succeed him in the King role.

Traveller, on 01 October 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

And how he's 'jazzed up' the barrel scene (which means it will now be roughly 3 times as long as it should be, and likely resemble a theme park ride) and not forgetting his comments regarding the addition of new characters - 'it's great to make up new characters, as you can take the story where you like. The book has the Battle of Five Armies...by the time we're done, there might be 5,6, who knows?'

This does NOT fill me with confidence.

From a filmmaker POV, "jazzing up" scene's like the barrel sequence are key to being "action setpieces" in films like this which have a lot of walking and exposition. Without them, the pace drops because these are yarnspinner stories. On paper, you don't necessarily need that pacing, cause you are already "reading". In the visual medium though, you need this sort of thing to keep things clicking for the casual viewer, who isn't a die-hard Tolkien fan and will be there solely for the dialogue.

Again, film is a totally different medium, that requires a whole different set of tools to bring to life. If that means adding armies, or characters, then that's how it is.

As to my opinion, I absolutely ADORE the addition of Tauriel...simply because some of my fave characters from Tolkien's work are female elves, Galadriel being the best of those. She's arguably the strongest character in the entire story, and I think is the eldest (barring possibly Cirdan).

You don't have to explain why they make these changes ('Film is a totally different medium?' Really?!) I understand why they make them in the translation from book to film, or rather why they think they need to. Jackson just takes it too far, which is unecessary with a classic like The Hobbit. What, they think that if they stick to the book, no-one will watch it? They think 'women won't like it because there aren't any girls in it?' That's bullshit. They know how marketable these new characters will be, and take full advantage of the 'gaps' in the story to fill it with their own material - most of which stands out, as they (Jackson and Walsh) aren't actually very good at it. Seems like you're their perfect target market to me - someone who liked the movie version of Legolas in the first films, and want more of the same, which they are more than happy to do.

I just think the films suffer from this self indulgence, which is a shame as the book itself is good enough without any major alteration.

(Other filmmakers don't feel this need for balancing out the genders - you don't look at something like 'Apocalypse Now' and say, hell, this is crap, women are really poorly represented in this, if at all. It's a film based on a classic novel, set in a warzone, with a bunch of male soldiers. Coppola didn't read Heart of Darkness and decide that what it really lacked was women, and invent some female characters to attract or satisfy a female audience..he changed it, yes, but he kept the tone and theme of the book.)

I generally liked what they did with the first Hobbit film; making the mountain giants scene from just one or two lines in the book was great, and the dwarven song was really nice. But the goblin cave turned into a farce (admit it), the rabbit sledge scene was hardly needed, and Bilbo suddenly stabbing an Orc to death was totally out of character. He's just going the same route with this next installment - heading further away from the content and tone of the book, to try to appeal to a wider market, and because he can.

Plus... Tolkien's Elves are a mix of the tragic and carefree, because of their long lives in comparison to mortals. I don't know why Jackson portrays most of them as snobby, aloof, condecending, slightly camp, and for the most, quite unlikable.

Fine, if he wants to make films with ninja Elves and extended action sequences, he can make them - just don't call it the Hobbit, because it really isn't anymore.

First off, no need for the snarkery. I'm just answering to your complaint with what I know about the film industry and adaptation. If you already know that stuff, then I'm unsure how you can feel your filmic complaints can really stand, as they kind of sound more like "Leave the book exactly how it is, and don't change anything". But hey, feel free. Revised, see below post, I've modified this view, but i wanna leave it here to remind me of the mistake.

Your APOCALYPSE NOW comparison doesn't really work though, as it's not a situation in which females would have been (deep jungle crazy and a band of military forces at a time that females weren't a part of that military)...Middle-Earth on the other hand is RICH with female characters. Adding some seems perfectly fine to me.

You don't feel that when they are fleshing out the world with new characters, the fact that they went with a female Elf was okay? Cause that's how your argument comes off. Or at least that's how I perceived it. Or are you saying that ALL the elves that exist in Mirkwood other than Thranduil himself should have no names, personalities, or character? Cause I'm really confused by that stance. In the book they can handwave a bunch of Elven guards, but to do so in the movie would betray decent actor scenery and such.

I'm not going to get into a semantic argument with you about the content of the first film and what was good and what not. That's totally subjective, and you've made your position clear.

Lastly, RE: Tolkien's elves. I heartily recommend a read of THE SILMARILLION (It's a brilliant book!). There is a reason that the Elves come off as aloof, snobby, and condescending...Jackson has done his homework and knows the history of the elves...this is most evident in the way the Elves and Dwarves treat each other. The Elves were the First Born of Eru, but didn't appear until AFTER Aule had already crafted the Dwarves...he just had to keep them in stasis until after the Elves showed up on the planet. The elves know this, and so they actually BELIEVE they are superior (Eldar, People of the Stars), as they are the closest to the gods (the Valar) themselves. They are contemptuous of the world of Men as well, due to their late appearance in the world, and their general spreading, multiplying, and basically being like a plague. Not to mention the first men were of Numenor (Atlantis) and the Elves found that Men quickly fell under the dominion of Morgoth (the first Dark Lord), and caused the Fall of Numenor, the sundering of a large part of the Middle_earth Continent where Elves habitated (Beleriand), and basically created the rift that continues until the First Alliance of Men and Elves in the Third Age. And frankly, the Mirkwood elves in the book THE HOBBIT, beginning with Thranduil himself come off as holier-than-thou jerks. But it's much more complex than I think you are saying.

So yeah, where on earth you get carefree from, I dunno. Tragic? Sure, that fits with the elves of the first 2 ages and Beleriand and Valinor...but carefree? Aside from being big fans of singing and dancing (which they use as a ruse in THE HOBBIT to entrap the companions) Tolkien has them as anything but IIRC.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 01 October 2013 - 10:54 PM

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 01 October 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

First off, no need for the snarkery. I'm just answering to your complaint with what I know about the film industry and adaptation. If you already know that stuff, then I'm unsure how you can feel your filmic complaints can really stand, as they kind of sound more like "Leave the book exactly how it is, and don't change anything". But hey, feel free.

That isn't really fair. There's a massive difference between thinking an adaptation should not change anything about the source story, and thinking that Peter Jackson just isn't very good at changing the source story.

There's also the fact that things being done to please the casual cinemagoer, while making commercial sense, don't necessarily mean that these things are good in cinematic terms. Often, the casual cinemagoer has shit taste.

[worry]

That's another terrible thing about trailers. They tear communities apart.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 01 October 2013 - 10:46 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 01 October 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

First off, no need for the snarkery. I'm just answering to your complaint with what I know about the film industry and adaptation. If you already know that stuff, then I'm unsure how you can feel your filmic complaints can really stand, as they kind of sound more like "Leave the book exactly how it is, and don't change anything". But hey, feel free.

That isn't really fair. There's a massive difference between thinking an adaptation should not change anything about the source story, and thinking that Peter Jackson just isn't very good at changing the source story.

There's also the fact that things being done to please the casual cinemagoer, while making commercial sense, don't necessarily mean that these things are good in cinematic terms. Often, the casual cinemagoer has shit taste.

Fair point.

Apologies to Traveler on that point. I agree PG, that's presumptuous of me.

[Defiance]

Meh...it just feels like Jackson became a victim of his own success. I wasn't expecting a recreation of the LotR movies and the more carefree tone isn't surprising. But this just feels way too Hollywood. Sure, the LotR movies had their generic over-the-top action moments (most Legolas stuff), but I never felt like it was overdone. Yeah, The Hobbit was written as a children's book, but it was never about excessive action. Most of the action scenes revolved around humor and wit. None of them were written as ten minute theme park attractions.

I'll probably end up watching it on DVD, but I don't think it'll be worth going to the theater for.

[Macros]

I can see a theme park ride coming from the under the mountain chase or the barrel riding.

I'm nit one of those guys that's wails at changes from books to films. But some changes are unnecessary and actually detract from the story/ ruin an awesome scene (see the fucking elces appearance at helms deep for LotRs biggest mess). On the whole I enjoyed the LotR books, extra Arwen didn't overly bother me.

the first hobbit movie was watchable, the under the mountain bit got ott but that happens, it was always going to happen stretching the hobbit to three movies.

we could argue that as the hobbit was the first book, its characters and history weren't as well fleshed out so lack if strong female characters is a flaw in it.

My problem isn't with adding stuff in, not even creating new characters (excepting what seems to be ruining bilbo brilliance with the barrels) Thranduil is supposed to be slightly paranoid and aloof, greedy to boot. I always wanted more on Gandalf taking on the necromancer.
what I dint want to see is another legolas visual masturbation action scene. They look ridiculous, low point in LotR was sheild surfing, but it panders to a younger audience who just want popcorn fun. Dies it make for a good adaptation? No, does it make sense in the canon? Probably not. Will tye general public lap it up and never read the book? Most certainly

[Tapper]

Meh, QT, imho you are defending the commercialisation of the movie as sticking to lore or even worse, 'equality of the sexes by introducing a strong female' (who, as far as I can see right now in the trailer, is incidentally beautiful, has great (combat) skills, wears a skin tight outfit more designed to appeal to teenage boys than to your average woman AND is the forbidden love interest for Legolas). How many Hollywood concessions/cliches do you read into that single sentence between parentheses? I count 5. How many of those actually mean she's a strong character? Zero.

I guess it is very hard to portray the Hobbit in such a way that older readers and their (grand)children will like it, as well as pleasing the unwashed masses who never read it and look for winter holiday amusement. There is just no denying that commercialism and market targets play a massive, massive role. There would be a huge difference between an HBO version of LotR/Hobbit/Silmarillion and a cinema-version and the difference is purely and simply based on the age ratings and thus, content.

As for Tolkien and strong female characters: the whole Silmarillion is about the the doom of the Noldor, the rise of man and it's subsequent descent into decadence and it is hardly free from cliches or dei ex machina. It is essentially a tragedy and reads a bit like a cross-over between Iliad, Beowulf and Morte d'Artur. Few if any of the women featured in it were warriors like Jackson's ninja-invention. Fewer still functioned as a love interest. Luthien iirc did quite some daring stuff but iirc she is the exception.

With its stronger individual focus, the story of Beren and Luthien is standing out in the Silmarillion. It is like the Odyssee (or perhaps the Theseus and Ariadne myth, or a Grail knight story) more than the Iliad. That being said: the general portrayal of women is of them as strong rulers, magicians capable of weaving glamour (Galadriel) and pillars of the community or, every now and then, tragical love-interests (Arwen fits that bill in the books with her sacrifice of immortality for love). And usually, there's a man at their side who is just as strong, if not stronger. Galadriel is the exception there but only because she's the sole survivor of the ancient royalty. Blood and breeding has power with Tolkien.

The only one woman truly standing out in LotR itself was Eowyn and shield maiden of Rohan or not, she was basically Theoden's nurse during the period in which he was spellbound. At Helmsdeep and at the muster, where twelve year old boys were given arms, able bodied women weren't - in both books and movies, Eowyn herself was stowed away at Helmsdeep with the other non-combattants, with not so much a mail coat, a shield or a sword to protect her at the supposedly last stand of Rohan.

Tolkien set out to create a mythical environment and I doubt equality of the sexes was very much on his mind. Fine if Jackson wants to change that for whatever (marketing) reasons, but let's not deny that this is not true to the publication The Hobbit and likely to cut into the screen time Beorn or Brand (the archer) gets. It wouldn't surprise me if Ninja girl is the one to actually shoot Smaug.

[QuickTidal]

Tapper, on 02 October 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

Meh, QT, imho you are defending the commercialisation of the movie as sticking to lore or even worse, 'equality of the sexes by introducing a strong female' (who, as far as I can see right now in the trailer, is incidentally beautiful, has great (combat) skills, wears a skin tight outfit more designed to appeal to teenage boys than to your average woman AND is the forbidden love interest for Legolas). How many Hollywood concessions/cliches do you read into that single sentence between parentheses? I count 5. How many of those actually mean she's a strong character? Zero.

I guess it is very hard to portray the Hobbit in such a way that older readers and their (grand)children will like it, as well as pleasing the unwashed masses who never read it and look for winter holiday amusement. There is just no denying that commercialism and market targets play a massive, massive role. There would be a huge difference between an HBO version of LotR/Hobbit/Silmarillion and a cinema-version and the difference is purely and simply based on the age ratings and thus, content.

As for Tolkien and strong female characters: the whole Silmarillion is about the the doom of the Noldor, the rise of man and it's subsequent descent into decadence and it is hardly free from cliches or dei ex machina. It is essentially a tragedy and reads a bit like a cross-over between Iliad, Beowulf and Morte d'Artur. Few if any of the women featured in it were warriors like Jackson's ninja-invention. Fewer still functioned as a love interest. Luthien iirc did quite some daring stuff but iirc she is the exception.

With its stronger individual focus, the story of Beren and Luthien is standing out in the Silmarillion. It is like the Odyssee (or perhaps the Theseus and Ariadne myth, or a Grail knight story) more than the Iliad. That being said: the general portrayal of women is of them as strong rulers, magicians capable of weaving glamour (Galadriel) and pillars of the community or, every now and then, tragical love-interests (Arwen fits that bill in the books with her sacrifice of immortality for love). And usually, there's a man at their side who is just as strong, if not stronger. Galadriel is the exception there but only because she's the sole survivor of the ancient royalty. Blood and breeding has power with Tolkien.

The only one woman truly standing out in LotR itself was Eowyn and shield maiden of Rohan or not, she was basically Theoden's nurse during the period in which he was spellbound. At Helmsdeep and at the muster, where twelve year old boys were given arms, able bodied women weren't - in both books and movies, Eowyn herself was stowed away at Helmsdeep with the other non-combattants, with not so much a mail coat, a shield or a sword to protect her at the supposedly last stand of Rohan.

Tolkien set out to create a mythical environment and I doubt equality of the sexes was very much on his mind. Fine if Jackson wants to change that for whatever (marketing) reasons, but let's not deny that this is not true to the publication The Hobbit and likely to cut into the screen time Beorn or Brand (the archer) gets. It wouldn't surprise me if Ninja girl is the one to actually shoot Smaug.

I wrote a long ass rebuttal to all of This and it took a half hour and my computer crashed so I'm not typing it out again.

Sufficed to say that your entire first paragraph is incorrect.

1. Elves are better fighters than man. They have a warrior discipline that has been honed over thousands of years. The "ninja skills" that everyone complains about...would have been present. They weren't fencing their way to Angband through an army of Orcs, Dragons, and Balrogs to fight a god with typical sheild wall techniques. They'd be doing something more graceful like king fu.

2. Skin tight?

Here are pics of Legolas AND Tauriel in their Ranger gear. Not skin tight. More flowing, and ranger-like, and REALLY similar don't you think? EQUAL even I'd say.

 EW_-_Tauriel_and_Legolas_still.jpg (100.07K)
Number of downloads: 0

And then there is Tauriel in her other outfit....you will also notice is not skin tight and covers all of her skin.

 the-hobbit-desolation-of-smaug-evangeline-lilly-tauriel-wb.jpg (20.19K)
Number of downloads: 0

And if you think they added a female warrior elf for marketing...man that's sad. We can't add women without fanboys getting upset I guess? There is nothing wrong iwth adding women.

Lastly, most knowledgeable authors endorse the fact that films and TV shows are HOMAGE to their work. Both Jim Butcher and JK Rowling are vocal on this fact. The books are still on your shelf, intact.

If this isn't the adaptation of the book you wanted. That sucks. But there isn't much you can do about it. You are welcome to your dislike, but I'd rather you not refer to those who are able to enjoy such homage as "unwashed masses", or that I'm "worse" or some commercialized audience drone...no, I just am quite alright with such changes. You aren't. That's the difference.

EDIT: I was also never arguing that Tolkien wasn't a product of his male-dominated era. He was. But that didn't mean he didn't have strong female characters to draw from, he just didn't use them as he did the men. And it certainly doesn't mean that Jackson can't beef up their roles for audiences in 2013.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 02 October 2013 - 01:45 PM

[Traveller]

Quick uTidal, on 01 October 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

First off, no need for the snarkery. I'm just answering to your complaint with what I know about the film industry and adaptation. If you already know that stuff, then I'm unsure how you can feel your filmic complaints can really stand, as they kind of sound more like "Leave the book exactly how it is, and don't change anything". But hey, feel free. Revised, see below post, I've modified this view, but i wanna leave it here to remind me of the mistake.

Your APOCALYPSE NOW comparison doesn't really work though, as it's not a situation in which females would have been (deep jungle crazy and a band of military forces at a time that females weren't a part of that military)...Middle-Earth on the other hand is RICH with female characters. Adding some seems perfectly fine to me.

You don't feel that when they are fleshing out the world with new characters, the fact that they went with a female Elf was okay? Cause that's how your argument comes off. Or at least that's how I perceived it. Or are you saying that ALL the elves that exist in Mirkwood other than Thranduil himself should have no names, personalities, or character? Cause I'm really confused by that stance. In the book they can handwave a bunch of Elven guards, but to do so in the movie would betray decent actor scenery and such.

I'm not going to get into a semantic argument with you about the content of the first film and what was good and what not. That's totally subjective, and you've made your position clear.

Lastly, RE: Tolkien's elves. I heartily recommend a read of THE SILMARILLION (It's a brilliant book!). There is a reason that the Elves come off as aloof, snobby, and condescending...Jackson has done his homework and knows the history of the elves...this is most evident in the way the Elves and Dwarves treat each other. The Elves were the First Born of Eru, but didn't appear until AFTER Aule had already crafted the Dwarves...he just had to keep them in stasis until after the Elves showed up on the planet. The elves know this, and so they actually BELIEVE they are superior (Eldar, People of the Stars), as they are the closest to the gods (the Valar) themselves. They are contemptuous of the world of Men as well, due to their late appearance in the world, and their general spreading, multiplying, and basically being like a plague. Not to mention the first men were of Numenor (Atlantis) and the Elves found that Men quickly fell under the dominion of Morgoth (the first Dark Lord), and caused the Fall of Numenor, the sundering of a large part of the Middle_earth Continent where Elves habitated (Beleriand), and basically created the rift that continues until the First Alliance of Men and Elves in the Third Age. And frankly, the Mirkwood elves in the book THE HOBBIT, beginning with Thranduil himself come off as holier-than-thou jerks. But it's much more complex than I think you are saying.

So yeah, where on earth you get carefree from, I dunno. Tragic? Sure, that fits with the elves of the first 2 ages and Beleriand and Valinor...but carefree? Aside from being big fans of singing and dancing (which they use as a ruse in THE HOBBIT to entrap the companions) Tolkien has them as anything but IIRC.

I didn't intend to sound (overly) snarky - I just found your response to be incredibly patronising, and it wound me up the wrong way. Just because you feel you have some knowledge about films and film adaptations shouldn't make you assume that no-one else does. I had already said at the start of my post that I understand why they make these changes - I didn't include a load of examples as I wanted to keep it short.

I agree that the Apocalypse Now example isn't great, however, it was just the first thing I thought of so I went with it. I'm sure there are many better examples of book to film conversions that didn't require the additions that Jackson makes, for the reasons he claims. I agree with you, the film doesn't have to be the same as the book; adding in the necromancer storyline is a great idea, and fleshing out minor characters is good. But, as I said before, he takes it too far, in this case to the point that he is rewriting the story.

My problem is, this is the first time a Hobbit film has been made - so why change it so much, when no-one has seen a decent reproduction of the original yet? It's not like there are already a dozen versions out there and Jackson wants to remake it. I'd like to see the book on screen, yes.

As to my Elf comments, I stand by them. I've read The Silmarilion many times thanks, and yes, it is a brilliant book. The 'carefree' aspect to the Elves that I'm referring to is the one that is described in the book (The Hobbit) as the way that the hobbit and dwarves perceive them. They laugh, dance about, sing nonsensical songs, and tease the dwarves about their beards, and Bilbo for eating too much. They're noisy and merry, and are generally seen as having fun and enjoying themselves, taking pleasure out of music and company and life. Whereas Jackson's Elves seem to stand around, playing harps, speaking slowly and morosely and looking down their noses at everyone. (See Celeborn in LotR's for a prime example.) Just sayin'.

I'm sure Tauriel will go down a storm. However, my first thought when I saw her was of all the posters of Legolas on walls just after LotR's came out - call me cynical, but all I see in her is a load more merchandise. I suspect her addition has far more to do with male audiences than female ones.

This post has been edited by Traveller: 02 October 2013 - 09:08 PM

[Macros]

I don't think its cynical to suggest a new character thrown into an already stellar story is a marketing ploy.
it most definitely is, a strong (I'm assuming, haven't seen the film yet) female character gives a female audience someone to identify with (personally I think its unnecessary, I know plenty of girls who love the hobbit novel with its distinct lack of female characters). To suggest a pretty girl being added to a story is not pandering slightly to a young male audience also is (Imo) quite niave. Its not as blatant as Megan drapped over a motor cycle, but in the stories universe (canonically) pretty warrior ladies are few and far between. Like it or not, in Tolkien land, war's a mans game.

[polishgenius]

Given this quote from Liv Tyler:

Quote

I was in New Zealand for a long time and preparing for fight sequences - all of these kind of elaborate things. And the more I did that stuff the further we were getting away from why they cast me and what was true of Arwen. And we all realized that. And we went back into the book and into the appendix. And... reshaped it. I think originally that, when they were looking at this character, they wanted her to be a strong character. She is a strong character, but... maybe they thought, "Oh, well if she's a fighter she's strong." And over time they realized that you don't have to put a sword in a woman's hand to make her seem tough. That's little actual makeup of who Arwen is, and her sheer will and strength and love for this man was strong enough.

I get the strongest feeling suddenly that Tauriel is him taking the opportunity to write the character he originally intended Arwen to be before Tyler pointed out that was silly.

[Traveller]

Could be. He wanted Arwen fighting at Helms Deep originally. Maybe even shot some scenes of it iirc.

This post has been edited by Traveller: 02 October 2013 - 09:49 PM

[QuickTidal]

Traveller, on 02 October 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:

I didn't intend to sound (overly) snarky - I just found your response to be incredibly patronising, and it wound me up the wrong way. Just because you feel you have some knowledge about films and film adaptations shouldn't make you assume that no-one else does. I had already said at the start of my post that I understand why they make these changes - I didn't include a load of examples as I wanted to keep it short.

I agree that the Apocalypse Now example isn't great, however, it was just the first thing I thought of so I went with it. I'm sure there are many better examples of book to film conversions that didn't require the additions that Jackson makes, for the reasons he claims. I agree with you, the film doesn't have to be the same as the book; adding in the necromancer storyline is a great idea, and fleshing out minor characters is good. But, as I said before, he takes it too far, in this case to the point that he is rewriting the story.

My problem is, this is the first time a Hobbit film has been made - so why change it so much, when no-one has seen a decent reproduction of the original yet? It's not like there are already a dozen versions out there and Jackson wants to remake it. I'd like to see the book on screen, yes.

As to my Elf comments, I stand by them. I've read The Silmarilion many times thanks, and yes, it is a brilliant book. The 'carefree' aspect to the Elves that I'm referring to is the one that is described in the book (The Hobbit) as the way that the hobbit and dwarves perceive them. They laugh, dance about, sing nonsensical songs, and tease the dwarves about their beards, and Bilbo for eating too much. They're noisy and merry, and are generally seen as having fun and enjoying themselves, taking pleasure out of music and company and life. Whereas Jackson's Elves seem to stand around, playing harps, speaking slowly and morosely and looking down their noses at everyone. (See Celeborn in LotR's for a prime example.) Just sayin'.

I'm sure Tauriel will go down a storm. However, my first thought when I saw her was of all the posters of Legolas on walls just after LotR's came out - call me cynical, but all I see in her is a load more merchandise. I suspect her addition has far more to do with male audiences than female ones.

Absolutely fair, and hence my post-comment, realization of my strong reaction. Apologies again.

Much appreciate the further fleshing out of your opinion, and yeah I can see a lot of those points.

And yeah, I see the Tauriel aspect as catching on like Legolas did with fans, and thus becoming a strong marketing tool, post-appearance. That's a good point. I don't think Jackson and Fran added her for marketing, but I can see how she's an easy character to become that after people see her in action.

And PG makes a solid point about Arwen as well.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 02 October 2013 - 10:33 PM

[polishgenius]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Beorn.


To put it as delicately as I can:


FUCK RIGHT OFF.

This post has been edited by polishgenius: 04 October 2013 - 04:10 PM

[QuickTidal]

I saw a moderately blurry shot of him earlier.

Yeah, those production photo's make him look super lame.

Willing to reserve judgement, but yeah. LOL

[Macros]

Oh for fucksake, that is just plain awful.

[Kaamos]

Chewbacca after a drastic shave?

[Aptorian]

What is Beorn supposed to look like?

He's that "supposed" Elder God that turns into a bear, right?