18

Peter Jackson has added a new character Tauriel (played by Evangeline Lily) to the Hobbit movie.
She's apparently a Mirkwood elf and a love interest for Legolas and not in the original.
Does anyone know anymore about this character and more importantly why did Peter Jackson and company feel he had to add a new character?

Gallifreyan
  • 20,473
  • 6
  • 103
  • 164
djm
  • 12,054
  • 8
  • 50
  • 78
  • 17
    Because they need to stretch it out across three to make back the money they've invested in it, and the original book is only enough for perhaps two movies lasting three hours. – Anthony Grist Jun 06 '13 at 14:25
  • 2
    Obviously Mr Jackson is pushing the fans to see what he can get away with before they start complaining. Also I VTC as non constructive - this question isn't going anywhere useful and is speculative at best. –  Jun 06 '13 at 15:50
  • 12
    Unlike LotR, The Hobbit had (IIRC) not a single female character who did anything consequential or even had a name. This character was probably added to draw female viewers. – Michael Borgwardt Jun 06 '13 at 16:03
  • 8
    @MichaelBorgwardt No question that The Hobbit had a deplorable lack of female characters, but iirc Bilbo's mother did indeed have a name (Belladonna Took), and was implied (if not explicitly mentioned) as the source of Bilbo's willingness to adventure. I know its not exactly a towering accomplishment of feminism in literature (its still about as far from that as a novel can get), but at least she did have a name. – Beofett Jun 06 '13 at 16:51
  • @Beofett Did she do anything consequential in the book? –  Jun 06 '13 at 17:16
  • @Keen its been a loooong time since I read it, but I'm not even sure she was alive in the book. Apparently it was mentioned that Gandalf knew her, and I think it was implied that she was uncharacteristically adventurous for a hobbit, but I believe that's about it. She's definitely not a character that has any direct interactions within the book, let alone enough of an impact to justify the (near?) total absence of other female characters. – Beofett Jun 06 '13 at 17:31
  • 2
    "why did Peter Jackson and company feel he had to add a new character?". Apparently, you don't know any women, or people in entertainment industry; or the question of "why was a love interest of Orlando Bloom added to a blockbuster movie" would not need to be asked :) . – DVK-on-Ahch-To Jun 06 '13 at 17:58
  • @Keen - http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/36621/are-there-any-female-characters-in-the-hobbit – DVK-on-Ahch-To Jun 06 '13 at 18:00
  • Personally, I was hoping for more of Galadriel... you know, give her a sword, have her teleport around the battlefield, kicking Uruk Hai butt while serenely smiling the whole time...;) – djm Jun 06 '13 at 19:33
  • 7
    @djm I think adding Uruk Hai to the Hobbit would be the final straw for me. – Anthony Grist Jun 06 '13 at 21:21
  • 1
    @AnthonyGrist Good point! I should have said goblins/orcs. – djm Jun 07 '13 at 00:52
  • 1
    @djm: your wishes will be fulfilled (well, not the sword perhaps). Galadriel is going to kick the Necromancer's ass out of Dol Guldur - that's actually canon (retconned by Tolkien in the LotR appendices). – Michael Borgwardt Jun 07 '13 at 07:02
  • 1
    Pretty obvious but I feel it is worth explicitly stating. The addition of more female roles into the Hobbit movies is a good thing. Plain and simple. The absence of females in the novel is a mistake that I am glad is being rectified in the movies. Canon be damned if need be. We can call it misogyny on the part of Bilbo as an unreliable narrator if we must. – DampeS8N Jun 07 '13 at 12:55
  • 1
    @DampeS8N I'll probably get into trouble for saying this but: I have a problem with it but not for the reasons most people would suspect. It's the hypocrisy that bothers me. It seems that people are arguing that gender doesn't matter except of course when it does. This irrational behavior isn't helping anyone. Perhaps I'll open this dialogue on the skeptics site... – djm Jun 07 '13 at 13:52
  • 1
    @djm There is no hypocrisy in giving women their due. Does every movie need equal representation? No. However, the addition of a few new female roles, and the showing of events involving females that happened at the same time but were detailed in later works are small changes that admit the existence of important women, without saying anything close to "gender doesn't matter". Anyone who says that gender doesn't matter is oversimplifying reality. – DampeS8N Jun 07 '13 at 16:23
  • 1
    @DampeS8N - I don't believe it is a "mistake" in the books. Tolkien wrote the books from a particular point of view, and he obviously couldn't say everything. There is backstory there. Galadriel is a big one, and I'm glad to have more of her. Legolas & Tauriel in the Hobbit? Not very glad about that, but oh well. – The Fallen Jul 25 '13 at 20:10
  • 2
    @MichaelBorgwardt: “This character was probably added to draw female viewers.” Some of us chaps like female characters too. – Paul D. Waite Jul 25 '13 at 22:09
  • @Paul D. Waite: Sure, but their absence isn't going to put us off the movie for lack of anyone to identify with. At least that's probably the logic of whoever thought this characters was needed, and I don't think it's entirely wrong. – Michael Borgwardt Jul 25 '13 at 22:38
  • @MichaelBorgwardt: yeah maybe. – Paul D. Waite Jul 26 '13 at 09:23

2 Answers2

29

No, she's not in "The Hobbit" or any other Tolkien writing.

The real question becomes, then, why add her to the film?

Short Answer: Because a MOVIE is a different medium than a BOOK

Long Answer: The Hobbit is a quick read that somehow still manages to have an epic feel. That's a tough accomplishment---quick but weighty story; fast trek but satisfying adventure. In the book, if you start in the morning you can end up with Smaug talking by the afternoon and Bilbo making it back home before dinner. In other words, you don't necessarily need additional characters along the way to create tension and danger because you quickly get to dangers and tensions when reading it (trolls, goblins, Mirkwood, elves, dragons, war, etc.).

The movie, however, is---like it or not---a trilogy. Given the limitations of the medium, i.e. film, there's no way a single, 2.5 hour film could capture the grandiosity of The Hobbit (although I personally think 2 films may have sufficed).

In An Unexpected Journey, Azog was highly embellished so that evil in general has a tangible representative. As I stated, this isn't necessary in the book since you get to the Goblins and then to Smaug relatively quickly. In the movie, though, you can't have it both ways: you can't make just one film that captures the epicness, yet if you break the Hobbit down into a trilogy, the different parts are lacking things that the book supplies, a certain inter-connectivity.

Because you don't get to Smaug, Azog serves to embody evil in film 1. And, because you (presumably) don't get to the war between the races that follows Smaug's demise, Tauriel seems to be an embellishment in the second movie that creates the racial tensions of the Hobbit (from the trailer, I'm assuming she wants the elves to aid the dwarves). Again, in the book you don't need them---you're reading about the dwarves imprisoned by Thranduil, and then an hour later you're reading about the races battling and Bilbo ultimately making a move that starts the process of healing and peace.

So. Books? Not needed because of the swiftness of the story. Movies? Embellishments like Tauriel (and Azog) possibly needed because the story is broken up into individual units.

Verdict: I'm totally OK with these types of embellishments, as long as they're well done. Azog is true to Tolkien's theological program in The Hobbit and LOTR: there is real evil in the world and it will be encountered, and it is dangerous (Tolkien is a bit of an anti-post-modern in that sense). Tauriel seems true to Tolkien's theological program as well in that the peoples of the world become splintered and divided in the face of evil, and that it takes some level of solidarity (along with providence) to engage and overcome evil. Don't forget that in LOTR, the "Fellowship" (or in the New Testament, "koinonia") represents all the races, the least of which being the most important (also pretty standard New Testament idea).

Hope that's helpful.

FoxMan2099
  • 3,678
  • 23
  • 23
  • 3
    A very out-of-universe answer, but very well written. +1 – The Fallen Jul 25 '13 at 20:04
  • 3
    This is a much better answer than the accepted one, imo. – Theoriok Oct 23 '13 at 12:11
  • 1
    +1 for a movie being a different medium than a book. Excelent point. And one I feel is overlooked on far too many modern adaptations. – Adam Head Jan 10 '14 at 19:01
  • 1
    +1 for good and well-argued answer. Still, I disagree that Azog and Tauriel are effective stand-ins for the ideas you mentioned. I never could understand how Azog could be so obsessed with his nearly-defeated dwarf enemies, quite obviously at the expense of his leadership, and not get killed or at least ousted by his rivals. He's an Orc, after all. As for Tauriel, the focus on having a female character with the battle-acrobatics of Legolas is actually a distraction from the Elf/Dwarf racial tensions, which could have easily been explored by Jackson without introducing more characters. – La-comadreja Jul 06 '14 at 16:49
20

There's no authority whatsoever in Tolkien's writing for the character of Tauriel, so she must be considered as purely a Jackson invention. The Wikipedia page on her seems as good a source of information as any (and cites references so it can be considered reasonably accurate), so let's quote some extracts from it:

She is a Woodland Elf whose name means "Daughter of Mirkwood", and is the head of the Mirkwood Elven guard.

Strictly speaking this should be "Forest Daughter" as "Taur" is just "forest"; "Taur nu Fuin" is "Forest under Nightshade", i.e. Mirkwood (there was an earlier Taur nu Fuin in the First Age too.) "-iel" is just a common feminine name ending that can be loosely interpreted as "daughter", but may be equally valid as "maid", "girl", etc. "-iel" is also present in "Galadriel", a bastardized/Sindarized version of Alatáriel - "maiden crowned with a radiant garland".

The actress playing her has this comment to make:

I believe she is authentic, because Tolkien refers to The Woodland Elves, he just doesn’t talk about who they are specifically… [Peter and Fran] know that world so well. They’re not going to create a character that is not true to Tolkien’s world.

I'm not too certain about that latter part, but I'll refrain from further comment on that as it's personal opinion. Moving on, we see the following description:

As head of the Elven guard, she is proficient in a variety of weapons, but mainly wields a bow and two daggers, weapons that are also used by the character Legolas, who appeared in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, and who also appears in The Hobbit films, though the two are not romantically linked.

This, of course, gives nothing away about how the character is going to be developed in the upcoming movies (but the focus on weapons seems to indicate she's going to be like Arwen in the first half of Jackson's FotR), so ultimately we'll have to wait and see.

  • 5
    They’re not going to create a character that is not true to Tolkien’s world. - I don't believe that. They added Lurtz (Fellowship) and Damrod (Two Towers-Faramir's lieutenant), and vastly changed the roles of others – The Fallen Jun 06 '13 at 16:12
  • I don't believe it either, but commenting on it doesn't seem relevant to answering the question. –  Jun 06 '13 at 16:35
  • 12
    By "true to Tolkien's world" she didn't seem to mean "a character that Tolkien didn't invent", but "a character that feels out of place or inappropriate". – Avner Shahar-Kashtan Jun 06 '13 at 16:42
  • 4
    @AvnerShahar-Kashtan - you mean like a bunch of Elves at Helm's Deep were not out of place? :) Or, dwarf tossing jokes were not inappropriate? – DVK-on-Ahch-To Jun 06 '13 at 18:04
  • 3
    I agree about the dwarf-tossing, but I like the elves at Helm's Deep. I can hotly debate this on Chat if you want. :) – Avner Shahar-Kashtan Jun 06 '13 at 18:08
  • @mh01 - that's why I didn't put it as an answer. DVK makes a good point about the other possible meaning being false as well – The Fallen Jun 06 '13 at 18:49
  • 2
    Good god, what is there to argue about? Jackson has butchered the story to the point that he might as well have Gandalf jump a shark tank on his wagon. – Ward - Trying Codidact Jun 07 '13 at 06:00
  • @SSumner - "They’re not going to create a character that is not true to Tolkien’s world." - Evangeline Lilly... Well, I saw the movie last night and I'm pretty sure Shai Hulud made an appearance, so that kind of shoots down that quote. – user23715 Dec 25 '14 at 00:37
  • @user23715 - if you read my comment, I mentioned that that quote is false – The Fallen Dec 25 '14 at 02:47
  • @SSumner -Aww... You didn't like my Shai Hulud joke... :( – user23715 Jan 01 '15 at 01:57
  • @user23715- I don't know who that is, so no, I didn't get it... – The Fallen Jan 01 '15 at 12:48
  • @SSumner - It's a Dune reference. If you can handle LotR (especially the Appendices) or the Silmarillion, then Dune by Frank Herbert might be something you'll like. – user23715 Jan 03 '15 at 02:16
  • @user23715- ah, thanks. I've heard of it but don't have the time now. – The Fallen Jan 03 '15 at 02:24