[Taikero]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I wonder if you would've been as sanguine about Arwen had they showed her fighting at Helm's Deep as was originally written & shot? Even back then they were trying to get the female characters to do way more than their original remit, but the fan backlash was too much for even them to ignore. Arwen taking Glorfindel's place was one thing, but hacking and slashing with the guys at Helm's Deep was too much (shame we never got to see Eowyn doing the same thing in the caves under the keep, something which was also shot but never used).

The filmmakers knew that they'd never be able to fudge with an existing character to that extent, so for The Hobbit they created an entirely new one who could be as kick-ass as they wanted her to be. Incidentally, Walsh credits Guillermo del Toro for giving them the final push to do that sort of character.

I would not have approved of Arwen going all gung-ho at Helm's Deep. That would have been out of character.

As for Eowyn doing so in the caverns, while I think it's an interesting idea, it would have caused some ripples to deal with in the third film. It was already a departure from the book for her to go to Helm's Deep, but one that easily made sense.

Still, I would have gladly accepted Eowyn stabbing an orc in the caverns over Tauriel. At least that still would have been in-character for Eowyn and dialogue could have been tweaked to justify her desire to go to battle at Pelennor.

"Father, our people nearly came to an end in those caverns. Do I not also deserve a chance to defend those I love at the end of it all?" That sort of thing. It would have been manageable to deal with this change and not much in the grand scheme of things would have been altered.

Originally Posted by GenPion

Tauriel is a great addition the universe of these films. I'm really quite surprised to see so much backlash. Evangeline Lilly is great and was perfect casting opposite Orlando Bloom. These films NEEDED a character like her to join the cast of characters. Otherwise, this trilogy would have only had one prominent female character. That simply wouldn't have worked. I for one am glad for the addition.

Those of you arguing against the addition of the character would have really preferred a film which only had some Hobbits, Dwarves, and Orcs in it? And no female character at all? This would have been bad on multiple levels.

So a film can't be successful unless both genders are present as major characters? I guess films like Moon, 3:10 To Yuma, etc. are just terrible then.

How many female Transformers have there been in that film series (obviously not the greatest films ever but certainly commercially successful)? Where's the outcry about that?

Why was the character of Alfrid, the Laketown master's assistant, not cast as a woman? That could have been a great female character, totally non-canon, with plenty of humor to go around, yet a man was cast.

Why couldn't Legolas handle questioning his father's views? What value does it bring to the table for a captain of the guard to do so when Legolas, an already well-established character, could have done the same thing and perhaps shown some character growth in this trilogy in the buildup for his role in the Fellowship some 60 years later?

As for that one major female character,

[Show spoiler]Galadriel has ripe opportunity for the third film to single-handedly lead the White Council in assault on Dol Goldur, using her magical prowess to tear down its walls and enchantments and cast the Necromancer/Sauron from it, forcing him to retreat in terror to Mordor.

If that's not powerful, if that's not meaningful, and if having that alone as a "powerful female moment" is somehow terrible or bad, I don't know what is good.

In any case, I honestly don't mind when characters are added or altered for adaptations, so long as those additions or alterations make sense within the confines of their respective universe. If it doesn't make sense, I don't like it. Tauriel makes no sense, and the changes made to support her character don't either, and it's bad enough to harm the integrity of the LotR trilogy as well for fans who actually care about the source material even a little bit. That's the issue. It's not so much that there's a new character, it's that the implementation of that character reeks of disrespect for the source material. For those who care nothing for the source material, it's simply "Arwen 2.0". For those who know about the source material, having "Arwen 2.0" should never have happened, and very few people know the source material like Peter Jackson does.

Feel free to explain why it would have been so bad to leave out an unnecessary character in place of fatherly love for a son displayed by Thrain, in place of father-son discord that would have been possible between Legolas and Thranduil (moreso than we already might see), in place of more character development for Beorn (maybe an actual flashback of his imprisonment/torture instead of just exposition), and in place of expanding on Legolas and Gloin getting to know each other as a way to grow Legolas's character and pave the way for Legolas and Gimli being part of the Fellowship. Golden opportunities missed, among others I'm sure, in favor of something else for the sake of equality, political correctness, or some other such notion.