I've finally been able to see it since Japan is ridiculously slow with getting movies over here. Overall I'm not disappointed, more than once I was bouncing in my seat and swearing over the intensity of it all. xD

However, I'm seriously like... why a romance? Why? Seriously though, WHY?! It's not needed to further the story, it's not needed to make the characters better it's not needed for any reason whatsoever. In LotR it made sense to embellish on Arwen and Aragorn's relationship, so that it'd be 100% clear what he was willing to go through for her as well as what she ultimately gave up to be with him. But this ridiculous and quite frankly very silly romance trio is just... obnoxious and completely without a point. In LotR we have a very clear image of Legolas and genuinely? I think Orlando Bloom played the character extremely differently then. Better. This whole romance nonsense makes no sense for that character. I can understand there being a sort of... "whoa"-ness between an elf and a dwarf. After all, Legolas and Gimli definitely developed a deep bond through their adventures. But really, after meeting once we're supposed to believe in some sort of ridiculous puppylove romance? Spare me.

I loved where it ended though, I thought that was perfect. I might have actually gotten out of my seat, with my fist raised, in anger. Haha.

Might have more thoughts later, but it's all still very fresh and I need to process it.

Let me say this though: Smaug - was VERY pleased. Thought they got him right all the way to the bone. Both voice, and his visualization and his arrogance mixed with genuine cleverness.

_________________


Rest in peace Carrie Fisher, the legend we didn't deserve.

^^ I didn't like the romance thingy at all at the few first watchin times, but I sort of get used of it after more watching times. It is kinda stupid, though. What the heck was PJ thinking?

_________________
What if?

I don't know. Let's be ridiculous? I think what annoys me more is that she really could have only ONE function, when it concerns Kili. And that's if she was to function as his happy ending, i.e. the two of them end up together and live happily ever after. But for anyone who has read the books they know that's not going to happen. Now it's like "hey, this movie isn't sad enough, let's make sure to make some people cry over the whole broken hearted ridiculousness too". Sigh. He was so perfect with LotR, why go and ruin the Hobbit?

_________________


Rest in peace Carrie Fisher, the legend we didn't deserve.

The romance was unneeded, yes. But seriously, I could have been worse. Wayyyyyyyyyyyyy worse.
If you think about it, at least they didn't kiss (that would be really dumb) and IMHO, the "romance" was one sided. Tauriel wanted to befriend Kili (who was probably the only dwarf that didn't think of he as an ugly stuck-up Elf ) and Kili had a typical crush on her. Nothing more.

I will say, however, that the music was 100% amazing! Beyond the Forest (a combination of Kili and Tauriel's theme, Tauriel's theme and a few others) was awesome!

I'd better stop...I could rant for hours about how the "romance" shouldn't be called romance yet...I'll stop

_________________


Banners by Nicole and ErasuithielS

None of it is necessary, believable or desirable though. Regardless of whether it's just a crush or not. It's not needed, for any reason, and it was absent from the book for a reason. I mean, elves and dwarfs HATE each other. Violently. For a reason. I can understand and respect there being a sort of fascination building - but not that fast. Not like that. Not with those tones. Even Legolas and Gimli didn't warm to each other that fast.

_________________


Rest in peace Carrie Fisher, the legend we didn't deserve.

I didn't think it was the best move to add the love story but I actually agree with a lot of what Elenia said. I wasn't overly fussed at the romance, and yeah there were things I had rather they gave screen time to over that- but then I felt the same about Smaug pointlessly chasing the Dwarves through Erebor for half the film too.

But from the amount of drama I've seen about it, I was pleasantly surprised at how inoffensive the love story actually was- it was mostly well written (overlooking a certain trouser line) and whimsical. And to me it came across to me more like they were kindred spirits than the next Aragorn and Arwen. I agree maybe not necessary in an adaptation sense, and not true to the books- but then there's a hell of a lot of things in PJ's Rings that aren't as well- so that's kind of irrelevant anyway.

But I think it was there for greater reasons than someone saying oh hey lets just make two random characters fall in love. PJ said he wanted to explore Gimli and Galadriel's relationship more in LotR but never got the chance- and in the book- Gimli was instantly overcome by Galadriel's beauty, and Galadriel in turn immediately respected him and granted his request- and this is hugely important considering the broader history of Middle Earth. I can kind of see Kili/Tauriel as a ham-fisted tribute to this as both put aside their joint history for the greater cause, and we barely get a look at Elf/Dwarf friendship in PJ's LotR films, Legolas is buddy buddy with Aragorn throughout the trilogy, we get tons of scenes to tell us this, whilst his friendship with Gimli gets two lines. If they're making so much of the rivalry between Thorin and Thranduil its a good to shed more light on the Elf/Dwarf friendship too- especially as its not entirely absent from the book as it ends with the three peoples living in harmony.

I can also accept its place in the film as a plot device because the romance will help to raise the stakes in There and Back Again. If they stuck to the book, in Film 3 it would be 3 boring hours of bickering about treasure until the orcs come. But Tauriel and Kili will be on opposing sides before the Battle of the Five Armies- which will make the non-Tolkien audience realise how serious it is that the Elves and Men want to declare war on the Dwarves- it enforce the theme that the treasure is not the most important thing to fight for and make it all the more poignant when the two sides put aside their differences to fight against evil.

And yes it will be incredibly tragic when Kili dies, but having the romance with Tauriel makes his death important- in the book it doesn't really matter that Fili and Kili die- they're background characters and contribute nothing to the plot. But in the film we sympathise with them and know how important they are. Tauriel gives us a reason to want Kili to live- so he can be with her or his mother again and and I'm pretty sure they constantly tell us Fili is Thorin's heir for the same reason.

_________________

Lembas and Elenia, thanks for adding that perspective! I really hadn't looked at it that way, and was only slightly annoyed by the whole Kili/Tauriel thing because for me it just didn't make any sense. But reading your arguments (especially Lembas') really changes my view on that couple.

One thing that I've always liked about the Kili/Tauriel situation is how interested Tauriel is in Kili, while everyone in her close environment is clearly anti-Dwarf. I like it that she can look behind Kili's appearance and see someone she likes, even if he's totally different from the people she's probably grown up with. It also makes her world view a bit more flexible than Thranduil and Legolas', who are both clearly prejudiced about everything Dwarf.

_________________

For me the problem is that I can bet you anything that's not even remotely the reason why they created the character. We can add all these deep reasons for why they'd add her but in reality it was most likely about money and making the movie more appealing to a larger audience = more money. And that does annoy me, and always will, regardless of what deep reasons people want to put on it.

_________________


Rest in peace Carrie Fisher, the legend we didn't deserve.

But it seems pretty apparent that the whole Hobbit franchise is first and foremost there to make a ton of money off the back of LotR, the fact that PJ didn't want to direct it initially says to me it never was going to be the act of love that LotR was. The fact it's three films and not one or two and Thorin is drop dead gorgeous not a miserable old goat also adds to this. But even if PJ or the producers or whoever wanted to add Tauriel for money making reasons it's still not necessarily a bad thing because it's good to have more female characters in big fantasy blockbusters and the wider public have shown that they want to see them. And at then end of the day if I was spending millions on a film, I wouldn't just want a small fan base of book lovers to be the only ones that saw it. The addition of Bard's children and re-casting the master of Laketown with someone as famous as Stephen Fry, both of which, like Tauriel, as captain of the guard, were pretty much characters by name only don't get the amount of heat I've seen about Tauriel, yet they're obviously there to make money too...

_________________

I don't have a problem with the character of Tauriel existing. I don't have a problem with someone famous being cast as her. I have a problem with the ridiculous romance that's hinted at. Infatuation, such as what it was between Gimli and Galadriel (or you know, from him to her), that'd be fine. This clearly isn't the same thing. No matter what arguments people use my opinion is 100% set.

_________________


Rest in peace Carrie Fisher, the legend we didn't deserve.

^^ I know.. Cause I feel the same. I love Tauriel, she's absolutely gorgeus, and Kíli is too. They are awesome, but.. the romance... nope.

_________________
What if?

Exactly. I think what annoys me most is that apparently it's impossible to let a female character blossom without forcing her into a romance with at least one, or in this case two, characters. Because it's clearly implied that she and Legolas have feelings for each other too but that's all doomed bla bla bla because of him being worth more than her. I'm sorry, but why can't a female character be expanded and made kickass without having to serve as a romantic pawn?

_________________


Rest in peace Carrie Fisher, the legend we didn't deserve.

I really think that everyone should take a couple hours and go listen to the podcasts by the Tolkien Professor (Corey Olsen, who is actually a college professor that teaches Tolkien Studies).

I find that sometimes we (as Tolkien fans) can be the *most* critical of any adaptation. Professor Olsen reminds us that it IS just an adaptation, and that there are some forms of criticism that aren't worth our time...

Here's the Tolkien Chats, which the two at the bottom (#16 and 17) are his reactions to the DoS.
Or here are direct links for parts 1 and 2:
Reactions to the Desolation of Smaug-Part 1
Reactions to the Desolation of Smaug-Part 2
You can also find them on iTUNES

Also, to quote my own earlier post (because every once and a while I have these awesome moments... )



Just some additional food for thought. Maybe we can really delve deeper into not the WHY of how the characters came into being, but the WHAT effect it has on the story, and WHAT it reveals about Tolkien's world.

_________________


Want a banner? Click here!

Well said Meganelf- I must add reading through the whole thread, your initial comment summed up my reaction when I saw the film too. Though coming back to the boards months after I saw DoS I didn't see fit to add my 'First Impression'.

And I'm all for not focussing on 'wah wah wah [insert here] wasn't in the book' because at the end of the day DoS was a good film irrespective of all the changes- and isn't that meant to be the most important thing?

I'd love for all us Tolkien fans to look more at the WHAT has changed, though I do want to make a case for talking about WHY, not to take shots at the film makers (I was trying to point out in my last post the film makers whole purpose is to make money, not criticise them for it) because from a storytelling point of view I do think it's interesting to see how adapting things differently changes the dynamic. With any adaptation, I always like to try and look at how changes impact the story/world/themes and then attempt to understand why they chose to do this and how different the made/ may make things. I'm by no means a fiction writer, but I like to look at how things serve as storytelling devices.

But then maybe that means we're both on the same page, or at least similar ones...

I'm now going to listen to all those podcasts- because I can't believe they weren't in my life before.

_________________

I think everyone's entitled to their opinions regardless of what they are. I don't care what people's reasons were, I still don't like that it was impossible to let a female character bloom without throwing her into a romantic situation. And I never will like it, because that's how I feel, and always will feel. I don't care that she wasn't in the books, that's not an issue for me at all. I say go for it, embelish a character in the movie, create a new one, that's all good. It did make the movie more full to have a strong female character. But having said that, the romance will never sit well with me because to me it will always be pointless and done for no good reason. No podcasts will change that.

_________________


Rest in peace Carrie Fisher, the legend we didn't deserve.

Yes Yes Yes.
And I was so surprised that I hadn't encountered them either until 2011ish, and they are just fantastic. I don't listen to every single one (cause that would take a lifetime and a half) but I loved the Silmarillion Seminar series, as well as the Hobbit one, Tolkien chats, and even the "office hours" that he does. I didn't catch riddles in the dark until they were pretty far along so I didn't go back and listen to all of them, but instead listened to the recap episode for pre-DoS and picked up from there.




I agree with you completely, it is sad when female characters in epic movies always get the short shaft. I do wish she could have been developed more as her own person, not just as a romance, although having gone in expecting the worst from the romance angle, it was definitely toned down and I was pleased that it wasn't at the forefront (a la Aragorn and Arwen).



The podcasts aren't to change that, or any of your opinions. They're just the best in-depth Tolkien research and discussion that I've ever encountered in my life, including when I took a Tolkien class in high school.


Imma think I'm gonna start a new thread or two about the Tolkien Professor Podcasts/more in depth discussion of the movie.

_________________


Want a banner? Click here!