Thoughts on the new character, Itaril

Eldorion

Because we all know that Tolkien's books are sooooo unrelateable to women. In fact they're so unrelateable that women reads have helped make them some of the greatest best-sellers of all time!

Odo Banks

I reckon the ladies like Hobbits because they're little and their cute and their cuddly, like teddy bears. And what about those gorgeous furry feet!

Gandalfs Beard

Yes, but Films have to appeal to NON-readers too . In any case, it's Women readers (Purists no less) who are supporting this rumour.

Eldorion

There are more than enough readers of the book plus fans of PJ's films that The Hobbit could be a smash hit without bringing in any new fans at all. I'm not saying that would be preferable, but they don't to do anything. Besides, what makes you think that the story of The Hobbit wouldn't appeal to non-readers once adapted to film form? I'm sure that there are many people out there who would like the story but have not read the book for some other reason.

Tinuviel

Well being a female reader/lover of LOTR, it would be nice to see a female character. We all love the story, but it makes it easier for WOMEN to relate to other WOMEN.
And besides, we need some responsible leading lady to keep all of those male kritters under control :mrgreen:

Gandalfs Beard

I'm with Tinuviel on this one :mrgreen: .

Marandahir

Same here. I really thought that Arwen getting a bigger role in the movies was a good choice, from an adaptation point of view. The movies are never going to be exactly the same as the books, and Tolkien's one major problem was his lack of female characters in his books. They just didn't play a major role in this part of history (with the exception of one Éowyn), apparently, but because of that, the books do isolate away female readers to an extent.

Tolkien has been accused of being sexist, and sometimes even asexual, what with his lack of female characters. I don't agree with those notions, but I have heard them out there. I know how much he adored his wife, and the story of Beren and Luthien is a testament to that love. But he had a lack of romance in his novels, because it wasn't what he was concerned with at that time.

I think Itaril might be a good add for an adaptation, but only if she doesn't steal away the spotlight. She's supposed to be a lead, according to the unconfirmed information, and that means that she has a pretty major role. Hopefully her romance will enhance the themes of the Hobbit, rather than being, "oh and this romance happened on the side for you girls to go squeal over Legolas again, but seen from a action fangirl who has unrequited love for him."

I trust Guillermo Del Toro to make her flow seamlessly into the film. I don't quite trust Peter Jackson in that regard, but luckily Guillermo has a bit more of a rein over this than PJ does.

Tinuviel

Also, hobbits seem to have a feminine quality. I believe that the lack of female characters is only because the fellowship is like the brotherhood of man, no matter what culture. Also, he probably fed off of his experiences in war with other MEN. I would say he isn't sexist at all, read Beren and Luthien! Luthien saves Beren's butt countless times!!!!!
I believe there is a thread about feminism, am I right?
But Itaril seems awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tinuviel

Amen to that Eldorion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just by watching the movies, I became completely engaged! In fact, I didn't even know that LOTR was a book until a year or so after TT But I knew so much already!!!!!!!!!
Since I was so young when I fell in love with LOTR, the movies were what pulled me in. Good movies really advertise for the books they're about

Marandahir

I agree with you, Tinuviel. Unfortunately, The Lay of Leithian was never published, because it remains unfinished to this day (and will remain, considering Author Existence Failure). The only way to know the strong, female character of Lúthien Tinúviel is through indirect means – The Silmarillion, The Book of Lost Tales, Fellowship of the Ring's song and references. It's hard to see her as she is, because her literary character was never established (The Silmarillion reads more as a plot summary/history than an actual story).

For that reason, a lot of people never MAKE it so far as to the chapters on Beren and Lúthien in Quenta Silmarillion. They put it down half way into the Ainulidalë and never read it again, after thinking "what is this crazy dense stuff? It's as if I was reading some alien world's version of Genesis…"

So few people actually get to see Lúthien in all her strength.

I think GDT and PJ are justified in presenting a strong female character who was lacking in the original book. I love the book; don't get me wrong. I really want them to be faithful to it. It's just, difficult in that regard. I really like the idea of seeing the attack on Dol Guldur. I wouldn't mind a romance subplot. Itaril sounds interesting.

Gandalfs Beard

YAAAY!!!! :mrgreen: Another practitioner of Zen style "Purism". The Purism of No Purism (or something like that ). I agree Marahandir. Why can't an adaptation be both faithful AND have novel elements. Yes, Eldorion is correct when he says Spirit is hard to define, but that doesn't mean that there ISN'T one. I am very happy for PJ's version of LotR as being faithful to the Spirit of LotR, if not always the Letter (though I think it does better in that regard than some might suggest). I think DT will be awesome too.

I really do hope that there are a few female Elves around too. Luthien was an awesome character. Tolkien had quite a number of such strong female characters that don't get a lot of coverage in his two most widely read works. As they are the most likely to be the only books of his to get the Big Screen treatment, why shouldn't some of the elements of Tolkien's larger world be folded into the screenplays?

By the way, your comparison of The Silmarillion to The Bible is quite apt. Though it's just as fair (if not more-so ) to compare it to the Gnostic Texts or any other Ancient Religious/Historical Manuscripts.

Eldorion

So then ... what is the spirit of LotR or TH that was present throughout both book and films?

Gandalfs Beard

Hey, I've already had that argument . I'll let you and someone else duke it out for now. I just like the idea of Itaril .

Besides, the movies gave me the exact same tingly feeling I had when I read the books 8-) ,... not to mention the imagery and characters looking and behaving just as I imagined them ,... or the fact that the plot is largely intact (if you've seen Prince Caspian, or the Potter films, you know how much further films can stray from the original source material).

Eldorion

I think our disagreement boils down to disagreeing over whether the plot is largely intact, but I don't really suspect that either of us will change the other one's mind. I haven't seen Prince Caspian, but I have seen the Potter films and I definitely agree with you on that one. Actually, the main reason I think PJ does a better job than the Potter directors (or at least the more recent ones) because he is able to create movies that you don't have to have read the book to understand. :mrgreen:

NumenorwasFramed

Well i really hate to be the Debbie Downer in all this, but I have to say that this should have been expected. The first round of movies came from a passion for the content, with a Writer/Director who loved and cared for the world of middle earth and the characters running around in it.

Then it made a gazillion bucks, and as usually is the case, lawsuits over the money popped up. The passion form the first movies distanced himself, they found a capable guy, who says he doesn't like hobbits, and get him to sign on. He then spends more time talking about Frankenstein' s memoirs than anything else.

The fact that they haven't given the green light to an obvious home run speaks volumes. So why haven't they, well as we know, the studio has NO MONEY!

PJ showed up at New Line and said, I want to do LOTR, here is the proof i can do it, here is the script, I am ready and passionate, gimme 300 million dollars. They said "we'll take it", and a trilogy of inspired films were made to the benefit of all, the fans, the casual audience, the studio, everyone.

This round is a different scenario. I have a billion dollars in this bag, its called the hobbit movie, any one wanna open it?

Slimy Hollywood studio big shot leans forward and says "Yeah, of course, get a director if the first guy doesn't want in, grab some artsy guy with a few awards, but since its not all figured out, we have an opportunity for me "improve" the content, make it more "Audience Neutral", you know what I mean"

"there needs to be a strong female character, the first 3 films made a billion, but we feel there was more there, we missed a lot of the audience by having it be all about men, so if ya want to make the movie, lets see if we can add some women to the story, get more audience involved, we can do that right?"

In the context of the hobbit, the only culture that had females as leaders were elves, and that is because they were more socially evolved than the other races. This, is just the way it was, the way Tolkien designed it.

The main problem they have from a market position is the Hobbit is a much lighter and simpler book, written before the established films, which are insanely epic movies. They cant make the movie the way it is supposed to be, the story of a quirky common person who gets in over his head, and realizes he is taller than he thought he was. They have to top the last one, even though it is lesser in scope and story

Enter the story of Gandalf, what did he do during the many absences he takes in the hobbit. Well if we were supposed to know that, Tolkien would have written it into that story. The movie HAS to be bigger in scope and story than the first three, even though the book is not.

Hollywood does not like this project. They hate that it is a story entirely of men, that there is no sex or romance in it, that not one of the leads can be cast with a 6'2" headliner to draw the ladies. If it were not for the fact that it is THE FRIGGIN HOBBIT, this film would never be made. But there is a pile of money hanging out there, so they more or less have to, but they see the charm and character of this world as obstacles that they have to overcome.

Adding characters, to appeal to audiences, maybe wont ruin the film, but it is to me a sign of concessions to the superficial "focus group" think of Hollywood. And it is not like there hasn't already been a non stop trail of issues that have monkeyed things up already.

New Line should have just paid the Tolkien estate, not ticked off PJ, gave him another 300m and said "GO DO IT AGAIN"

What we got was "Noooooo the director LOVES hobbits, he was drunk and goofing around wen he said that stuff, really he was", "NOooooooowe are definitely making the movie, really we are, I swear, all we need to do is get a script past the political correctness cops at the studio, actually get them to green light the picture, and have PJ yank the leash of the leash of the director every 3 days, get him to stop pimping every other project he has for the next 10 years, and remember he is being given a chance to make THE HOBBIT"

"Ohhh and since there are no strong women in the book, and that's clearly an oversight of Tolkien, were just gonna add one, and also a male human, talks are in the works and going well to have Zack Effron, of televisons "High School Musical" play a new character as well, Selloutidir, a man prince or something like that, once we agree on how to split of the rights to the 4 original pop tunes he will sing in the movie, but we are on the same page, very close!

But MGM will probably go BK before all this actually starts to shoot, sell the project off to settle debts, and it will all be a do-over anyways.

If i sound trollish, I apologize, but it stems from a pretty big feeling of sustained disappointment in how things seem to be going. The charm and success of the franchise was built on the original brilliance of the stories. Adding new characters to pander, further diminishes the potential that this will be a great film, and that I believe is what kept Tolkien from ever allowing a live action film adaptation. When he producer is out there all the time assuring us that things are going well, and moving along, the one thing we can be assured of is that they are not.

And it really bums me out.

Gandalfs Beard

Cynical Much .

Oh you'll find some agreement on many of your points here at this forum (including some qualified agreement from me on a few points), but personally I think you're waaaaay overstating your case. Updating the Hobbit a bit, and fitting in Gandalf and the White Council, is hardly the Ruination you see it as, it only makes sense to include some of these factors, to make the FILMS a cohesive unit that actually contain other Tolkien material that might otherwise never see film. And yes that includes a bit of Feminization. Since there is now little chance that a "bridging" film will be made, The Hobbit will have to fulfill that function as best it can. The Silmarillion is demonstrative that Tolkien's world was NOT a Men Only club.

Unfortunately, The Hobbit, as Tolkien wrote it bears little indication of that, which is no problem for those of us who have read Tolkien's other material, but would be an issue for general film-going audiences. So why not borrow a little of Tolkien's Silmarillion style (Grrrrl Power <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> ) and blend it with The Hobbit. It could be done without undermining the basic story. As always, I am more concerned with subtractions than additions.

The biggest hurdle this film now faces is MGM's financial woes. Let's not conflate one's personal "purist" grudges (based in part on innuendo) with the Murky financial practices of Hollywood Studios.

Oh, and welcome to the forum :mrgreen: .

Odo Banks

I'm with you on this Mr Numenor.

Odo

NB You'll get used to our resident Tolkien Liberal-cum-Heathen Gandalfs Beard (he means well).

NBB If old Eru had given Men equality with Elves in the first place then He need not have destroyed Numenor (surely there were at least some innocent children among them, God has always seemed capricious to me!)

Fingolfin

I'm definitely more in step with Gandalf's Beard on this one. Just because Gandalf and the White Council was not in the book, doesn't mean that Tolkien didn't write about it in other places. There is a lot of material regarding the White Council and its very interesting and needs to be told. Tolkien has written very strong female characters Luthien, Eowyn, Galadriel, Melian, Yavanna and the list goes on. I'd really like to see a female character incorporated into The Hobbit, I really don't see how making a female elf play a role in the story will ruin the great story that is The Hobbit. As long as she isn't too prominent and overshadow the quest, I'm fine with it. It's an adaptation, there are going to be alterations due to the differences between film and text. When you cling to the original text like gollum to the ring, you're only setting yourself up to be disappointed. Be flexible! . . .to a certain point of course.

Zardoz

ITARIL - female, A woodland Elf, this character is one the Silvan Elves. The Silvan Elves are seen as more earthy and practical. Shorter than other elves, she is still quick and lithe and physically adept, being able to fight with both sword and bow. Showing promise as a fighter at a young age, ITARIL was chosen to train to become part of the Woodland King’s Guard. This is the only life she has ever expected to live, until she meets and secretly falls in love with a young ELF LORD. This role will require a wig and contact lenses to be worn. Some prosthetic make-up may also be required. LEAD. AGE: 17-27."

How does everyone feel about this? I for one am not too bothered by it as long as the love story is not brought to the forefront. They could really screw things up with this new character, or it could be a nice addition.

I think it's a bit much, and not of Tolkein's creation(therefor, I don't like it at all!)...I don't see how it would fit with the rest of the story or have anything to do with it...If it's meant for the Hobbit movie that is.


~On further thought, a love story in the telling of The Hobbit is dumb if not out right wrong...!

BOrgeron

Am I to understand that this “Itaril” is going to be in the Hobbit? It’s bad enough that they are going to put Galadriel in the film (a character who is not EVEN IN THE F’ING STORY), now they are making people up!!! This film SUCKS before it is even made!!!

Durin

Woooooooooah there, tiger. I'm not quite sure about our "language" policy here, but I am glad you "censored" some of your words. However, no need to bash the film in a forum that supports it, and I, personally, would appreciate it if you didn't have such a temper about it, saying you do not know what age groups could be viewing your posts. Please be considerate. :ugeek:

Gandalfs Beard

Might I suggest the Fantasy/Sci Fi Geek slang Frakkin'!? If it's good enough for TV, it'll work on this forum

Don't hate on Itaril. Firstly, she is merely a rumour. Secondly, she will most likely only be in scenes featuring Elves anyway. And there are plenty of such scenes in The Hobbit. Especially with the addition of the White Council/Dol Guldur/Necromancer material, which is all off-stage in the book, but will be included in the films.

Thirdly, she could be a key to some long puzzling mysteries embedded in canon: The Adventures of Bilbo and Itaril

Odo Banks

Cheek!

Gandalfs Beard

And I finally figured out how to make words link to other parts of the site. Just click on The Adventures of Bilbo and Itaril and it will take you right there.

Eldorion

I agree (at least partially) with your general sentiment, but would add my voice to those encouraging you to calm down. There are enough "angry purist" stereotypes out there already, so explaining a change may be upsetting is much more productive than just ranting.