Ok, so after seeing the last Tauriel thing locked I decided to start another one. BUT THIS ONE IS NOT FOR ARGUING ABOUT FEMINISM! its for happily discussing weather or not Tauriel is worth anything, not just weather its Tolkienite, but what it says about our culture as opposed to the professors. And also in the game, are there enough women? if there aren't, is that Tolkienite? what do ya'll think about the relationship between a dwarf and an elf?

I understand your well natured intent but my gut tells me this probably should not have been revisited . I will quickly note that I thought Tauriel in the film turned out better than I thought it would although the the forced romance was still quite groan-worthy

I like me some women in my games.

What you are describing is literally a feminist discussion. It's not a secret puppy punching philosophy. Lol.

I am always in favor of more women. So is FFG. WIN.

Stories evolve over time to be more relatable to the community it entertains. The notion of a white Jesus is absurd but it makes that story more relatable to the community it serves. Before that, Jesus had a fabulous bird head and was called Horus. It served that community. There are of course countless examples of this throughout history, but I'd like to pick the one that upsets the same people opposed to women and people of colour in Tolkien.

It's fair to challenge Tauriel's inclusion got feeling tacked on. It's fair to feel her hot steamy metaphor filled romance with a short guy (LOL in fantasy world short guys get love) somehow diminishes Gimli and Legolas' same sex marriage in the Lord of the Rings. These things might be argued to muddle or cause the story to drag. Since people complain more aggressively about Tauriel than they do about how Kili being hot isn't true to the novel, or how Legolas was totally not in that book, or how Cool ring wraith fight scenes didn't occur, you can rest assured this is sexist not purist debate.

I can't tell if what you are trying to do is have the discussion about women without including me, a woman, or without including the guy who hates a word he doesn't understand. In either case, talk about how old Legolas looks in the Hobbit instead. K thx.

I think Legolas's face alone looked like it gained 15 pounds between the original films. Maybe too many second breakfasts for Orlando Bloom between the films. *types the person who sits at a desk for 8 1/2 hours a day speaking negatively about a Hollywood heartthrob*

I actually thought Tauriel could've been a pretty interesting character fi she hadn't been saddled with that godawful romance. Having Thranduil being all insular and not caring to help others, with her speaking against that, is very fitting to the story particularly tying it into LotR as well, because the fact different races just tended to their own borders rather than co-operating was one of the big reasons why Sauron did so well - there was no chance of a second Last Great Alliance of Elves and Men (just pointedly ignore that scene in the Two Towers film...)

Unfortunately, that whole theme kind of got lost amidst the garbage that was the Tauriel/Kili romance.

Tauriel means "forest girl" in Sindarin. Man, some people just aren't creative with names.

What you are describing is literally a feminist discussion. It's not a secret puppy punching philosophy. Lol.

I am always in favor of more women. So is FFG. WIN.

Stories evolve over time to be more relatable to the community it entertains. The notion of a white Jesus is absurd but it makes that story more relatable to the community it serves. Before that, Jesus had a fabulous bird head and was called Horus. It served that community. There are of course countless examples of this throughout history, but I'd like to pick the one that upsets the same people opposed to women and people of colour in Tolkien.

It's fair to challenge Tauriel's inclusion got feeling tacked on. It's fair to feel her hot steamy metaphor filled romance with a short guy (LOL in fantasy world short guys get love) somehow diminishes Gimli and Legolas' same sex marriage in the Lord of the Rings. These things might be argued to muddle or cause the story to drag. Since people complain more aggressively about Tauriel than they do about how Kili being hot isn't true to the novel, or how Legolas was totally not in that book, or how Cool ring wraith fight scenes didn't occur, you can rest assured this is sexist not purist debate.

I can't tell if what you are trying to do is have the discussion about women without including me, a woman, or without including the guy who hates a word he doesn't understand. In either case, talk about how old Legolas looks in the Hobbit instead. K thx.

The point is not to discuss men or women or anything of the type. the point is to logically (insults are not logical) discuss tauriel and what she is in what we now see as tolkien.

What you are describing is literally a feminist discussion. It's not a secret puppy punching philosophy. Lol.

I am always in favor of more women. So is FFG. WIN.

Stories evolve over time to be more relatable to the community it entertains. The notion of a white Jesus is absurd but it makes that story more relatable to the community it serves. Before that, Jesus had a fabulous bird head and was called Horus. It served that community. There are of course countless examples of this throughout history, but I'd like to pick the one that upsets the same people opposed to women and people of colour in Tolkien.

It's fair to challenge Tauriel's inclusion got feeling tacked on. It's fair to feel her hot steamy metaphor filled romance with a short guy (LOL in fantasy world short guys get love) somehow diminishes Gimli and Legolas' same sex marriage in the Lord of the Rings. These things might be argued to muddle or cause the story to drag. Since people complain more aggressively about Tauriel than they do about how Kili being hot isn't true to the novel, or how Legolas was totally not in that book, or how Cool ring wraith fight scenes didn't occur, you can rest assured this is sexist not purist debate.

I can't tell if what you are trying to do is have the discussion about women without including me, a woman, or without including the guy who hates a word he doesn't understand. In either case, talk about how old Legolas looks in the Hobbit instead. K thx.

The point is not to discuss men or women or anything of the type. the point is to logically (insults are not logical) discuss tauriel and what she is in what we now see as tolkien.

Yeah that's not what you are doing and so far nobody should be offended except women that you feel the need to "objectively" discuss whether women in tolkien are worth anything.

You are trolling and pretending it's discussion.

The only answer that isn't pathetic is yes. Yes, more women. Yes, evolution. Yes, value added. The rest is just foreshadowing a future alone in the world.

The thing that upsets politically correct people is that Tolkien was able to write such an amazing piece of art without following their rules. Yet whenever "evolution" and "progress" are used to create "better" stories, the results are groan worthy and ultimately forgetable. If you want a feminist fantasy world then go create one, but that's not what feminism is about. It's about going back and "fixing" what isn't broken and making everyone who likes it as is feel guilty, ashamed, and obsolete. That's why they are bullies.

The reason I am personally a traced to women is because they are so vastly different from me. If gender is just some liquid changeable thing then I have no interest in romance or marriage (which is why feminism destroys the concept of family). I want women in stories who are feminine and I don't want to apologize for the masculinity of the male characters. The lack of female characters in Tolkien is not sexism. It is a story about violent conflict and in that context the stories are better with a group of men (band of brothers). I am not interested in evolving beyond that, evolving beyond the honour of what that means. When women are made violent in equal measure in denigrate both genders. Nothing illustrates that more than LOTR.

I will refrain from further comment to prevent the thread from spiraling out of control. Thanks you for reading.

Too late! Lock it, lock it now!

My Tauriel card design intended to search for a possible way an elf could be romantically involved with a dwarf.

I think generally, the cost of ccrossing the cultural boundaries is so high, that it would become social code not to find a dwarf likeable for an elf or vice versa.

Now what I though, that a Tauriel could work, if she had some disfigurment that would make her socially inacceptable, and thus find connection to dwarves.

I mean, in the film she is just a lowborn, and cannot marry the second highest ranking man in the realm. There is nothing that would stop her marrying some other high ranking offical at court.

She is a desirable elf after all.

Now if, say her mother had an accident, something, that made her disfigured, even bearded... that would instantly make her a socially ugly elf and yet someone dwarves could relate to.

I hope there is no need to go deep about social constructivism of beauty ideals here.

So now to Kili, he is adventurous, youngest, eager to see the world, probably love thirsty, and into her life comes this exotic beauty (a hairy elf), i can see why he fall in love.

And the tension is still the same. Both societies stil look disagreeably upon this kind of love. And also Tauriel and Kili is full of doubt.

Legolas, he is an interesting one. But again not the typical elf. He might have discovered the inner beauty of Tauriel, under the layers of disfigurement. He is in conflict with himself, the elven society.

So many complex characters and stories rise.

And Tauriel in the film? Too simple. First I thought she was just teasing legolas with Kili...

Very relevant thread on Tolkien Fans:
http://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/2u2y2j/the_problem_with_tauriel_and_kili/

Many very strong arguments that outline how much of an abomination Tauriel+Kili is.

Honestly I think if they really wanted to include Tauriel they should have just made her a strong female character and not include a complete joke of a love story that is unnecessary and only tacked on to make it more of a hollywood, stock standard film with a lame love triangle that doesn't make sense or gel with the fantasy world it is set in and also diminishes her character.

What you are describing is literally a feminist discussion. It's not a secret puppy punching philosophy. Lol.

I am always in favor of more women. So is FFG. WIN.

Stories evolve over time to be more relatable to the community it entertains. The notion of a white Jesus is absurd but it makes that story more relatable to the community it serves. Before that, Jesus had a fabulous bird head and was called Horus. It served that community. There are of course countless examples of this throughout history, but I'd like to pick the one that upsets the same people opposed to women and people of colour in Tolkien.

It's fair to challenge Tauriel's inclusion got feeling tacked on. It's fair to feel her hot steamy metaphor filled romance with a short guy (LOL in fantasy world short guys get love) somehow diminishes Gimli and Legolas' same sex marriage in the Lord of the Rings. These things might be argued to muddle or cause the story to drag. Since people complain more aggressively about Tauriel than they do about how Kili being hot isn't true to the novel, or how Legolas was totally not in that book, or how Cool ring wraith fight scenes didn't occur, you can rest assured this is sexist not purist debate.

I can't tell if what you are trying to do is have the discussion about women without including me, a woman, or without including the guy who hates a word he doesn't understand. In either case, talk about how old Legolas looks in the Hobbit instead. K thx.

The point is not to discuss men or women or anything of the type. the point is to logically (insults are not logical) discuss tauriel and what she is in what we now see as tolkien.

I don't think that at all. I do also think that it was an honorable thing for PJ to put more important females in the movies. I think that was a good thing. BUT ALL OF THAT ASIDE, I would like to discuss whether or not that was done WELL. My personal belief is that this whole thing should not be so stressed! We are simply discussing a character? WTH? If I were to have put up a post called "Radagast" asking why he was in the movies, we would probably discuss whether he should or not LOGICALLY! But simply because we are talking about a woman, everyone has to get in a debate. Maybe I shouldn't have reposted this. I had hoped that people would care enough about tolkien and the beauty that he created to not press their on agenda so much.

If you want to argue about feminism, PM each other! let the tolkien fans study tolkien!

ok, Im sorry for that. I will give my opinion on tauriel and what she is to tolkien.

I think that even though PJ was right to put another major women character in the movie, Kili just doesn't cut it. If you look in the whole world of Tolkien, the three man-elf relationships are very important to Arda. And thats another thing. Men and elves were created by the same god, made in his likeness, so it is not all that far fetched for them to get together. but dwarves are a whole different matter.

I honestly think that PJ was serving the modern world with is "romance" cause thats what Kili and Tauriel have. a modern relationship, flirting, sexual comments and all. If you honestly ask me, if tolkien saw the future and saw tauriel in the hobbit, I think he would go home and burn all of his works because they are SO against what we now think of as tolkien.

If I offend anyone in this, I am sorry. I mean no offence, and if it is taken, its not my fault. that is how I see it. Share your own comments as long as they are not insulting and they are about tolkien. No one here will fault you for having an opinion as long is it is well grounded.

Too late! Lock it, lock it now!

In before the lock!!

For me its simply not a gender issue.

LOTR pushed the fact that Dwarf and Elf had not clicked for aaaaages and that Legolas and Gimlis friendship (elffriend) was the first in a long time to challenge/break that. Then The Hobbit film tells us an elf and dwarf got really close only about twenty years before.

I think that devalues the events in lotr.

Nothing to do with gender (Tauriel looks so nice in the film and my male brain liked that) i felt the character did not fit the narrative.

I am ok, even support, more women in tolkien. But Tauriel didnt work. Would have been the same if Tauriel were male and the releationship was/wasnt romantic.

? Can open... worms everywhere?

For me its simply not a gender issue.

LOTR pushed the fact that Dwarf and Elf had not clicked for aaaaages and that Legolas and Gimlis friendship (elffriend) was the first in a long time to challenge/break that. Then The Hobbit film tells us an elf and dwarf got really close only about twenty years before.

I think that devalues the events in lotr.

Nothing to do with gender (Tauriel looks so nice in the film and my male brain liked that) i felt the character did not fit the narrative.

I am ok, even support, more women in tolkien. But Tauriel didnt work. Would have been the same if Tauriel were male and the releationship was/wasnt romantic.

? Can open... worms everywhere?

This. Characters in Tolkien's opus exist for specific reasons, and are tiles of a perfect mosaic. There are reasons why Elves and Dwarves are not friend anymore (goodbye, Beleriand, sacking Menegroth at the end of the First Age had some little consequences) and in general there's a feeling of mistrust and prejudice (see the first scenes with Gimli at Imladris, or Gimli entering Lorien). Often Tolkien stresses how Legolas and Gimli changed this for the very first time, to the point that Gimli seems to have been accepted in the now precluded West.

I have nothing against Tauriel per se, as I don't have anything against other female characters that may (or may not) have specific roles into adaptations from books (even tho I must say that there are few women characters in Tolkien's writings, but man, they are so good! From Morwen to Galadriel to Erendis to Eowyn, they are everything but without temper!), but I have a lot of things against the "let's put a love story here so that people will speak about it for eternity because we know we're doing something that will upset many, and talking about something is the best way to make promotion", and even more against the "let's take a short book and create a 3-part movie that will make us earn millions of dollars. Wait, not enough material? Let's invent half of the story, people will buy it nonetheless". For me this is a lack of respect towards the author's intentions. If you want to make a movie based on The Hobbit, then, please, do The Hobbit. Adapt what you need, modernize the language, whatevs, but do not create an overbloated blob and pretend it's Tolkien.

Just my two cents, and only my opinion.

I just wanted to drop this here, especially for those who haven't read the Silmarillion.. (Skip to the "Explore the Legend" part.) It's about why Elves and Dwarves hate each other.

https://masteroflore.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/narvis-belt/)

https://masteroflore.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/narvis-belt/

Broken link ecthelion.

Not broken for me... Just go to masteroflore.wordpress.com and enter Narvi's Belt into the search bar, I guess.

Edit: If you can't find the search bar, it's at the bottom.

My link works too. (A)

Hello The Lord of the Rings LCG community-

The previous thread on this topic was locked. Any threads that attempt to revive the discussion, such as this one, will be deleted without question in the future. Please keep the discussion on the game: The Lord of the Rings LCG.

Thanks, and keep playing,

FFG Forum Moderator