fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2541 ]

[ SECRET POST #2541 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2541 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 040 secrets from Secret Submission Post #363.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

In this case, who cares? She's a made up character anyway. Why does it matter if we can't spell Peter Jackson's Mary Sue OC correctly?

Aren't all characters kind of made up by definition?

all characters are made up, but some are more made up than others

Goddammit, Napoleon

Does it make it better or worse that I recognise this from the animated film rather than the book? In my defense, the film traumatised me at a way younger age.

Now I'm imagining a chorus of sheep in Mirkwood baaing 'Four legs good, two legs bad' at a bunch of elves. And then getting eaten by the spiders, on the grounds that eight legs is obviously twice as good again.

... I need more sleep.

Badum-tsh

ty for asking so i didn't have to

She's not AUTHORIZED made up! There's a big difference.

Mary sue how? Because she can use a bow like Legolas does?

You kinda lose credibility the moment the term "Mary Sue" enters your argument.

lmao no.

Miss Perfect Awesome At Everything All The Boys Want Her Original Insert Character is a Mary Sue whether you like it or not. That's like... the definition of Mary Sue. She's not a good character, and she wasn't in the source material so there was a huge hurtle she had to make - and she didn't make it.

Did we mock your Smaug/Bilbo art?

Tbh I am actually shocked that Tauriel apparently has so many stubborn hipster fans who insist she was great and awesome ~~solely because she's a woman~~ even though she was horribly written, as the rest of the film was. So determined are they in convincing themselves that she was a good part of this movie that, apparently, criticism yields results of... um, bestiality accusations? idek

1)Fuck you for calling me a hipster
2)I suppose that accusation was quite OTT of me, sorry
3)If the movie is as dull as the book, I'm happy for any new characters, TBQH

LMAO

Score one!!!!

Admit it you are just pressed because she's a she and gets her girl cooties all over your slash bois.

Admit it, the only reason you like her is because she's a she (added only to be a token woman, not a real character to move the plot along) and you're trying to make a political statement and female presence in the movie industry?

Also, what slash? The whole movie was rubbish. Why would I ship anyone when it sucked? Cute response, though.

I haven't seen it yet, though? And really could care less about her as long as the movie is fun. I mean really stay pressed.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-12-18 01:42 (UTC) - Expand

DA

(Anonymous) - 2013-12-18 02:22 (UTC) - Expand

Re: DA

(Anonymous) - 2013-12-18 06:27 (UTC) - Expand

Re: DA

(Anonymous) - 2013-12-18 07:28 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-12-18 03:20 (UTC) - Expand

Good characterization is up for interpretation (I personally thought it was intriguing and impressive) and whether or not a character was in the source material doesn't mean there has to be some arbitrary hurtle they have to jump.

why does tauriel have to be bad at things or undesirable in order to prove herself or be a good character when legolas showed equal or superior amounts of skill and no one is complaining about how unrealistic or gary stu-ish he is

tauriel was put in the movie because there are literally no other female characters besides galadriel and a lot of little girls are responding very positively to her presence. if you find her objectionable, too bad, because she is not for you, she is for them. otherwise there would not be a single named female character on screen for 2.5 hours (again, besides galadriel who appears for .45 seconds) and i find that fact far more abhorrent than tauriel being competent and successful

(and let's face it - if she hadn't been as skilled as legolas or the other elves, people would be criticizing her character for being weak and useless)

Legolas is super awesome at shooting bows. He wasn't needed in the film, no. But he doesn't have several characters pining for him, too, which is a pillar of Mary Sue/Gary Stu-ness. He's at most bland and unnecessary, but does try to connect the film more to LOTR, which isn't necessarily bad.

And what you're arguing now is something different than if she was a good character or made the film good. Which she wasn't, and she didn't. You can bring up the politics of the importance of female characters (a legitimate topic) but the book already exists as it is and that's okay. Adding a token female character isn't automatically a good thing. Tokenism isn't feminism.

(And I don't think not having a female character automatically makes a story abhorrent and sexist. I also don't think that a female character couldn't have been added to the movie - yes, I would've rather they worked in a canon female character than making up one, but even so. It could've worked. It didn't. Tauriel was bland and didn't add to the plot, just made an already too long movie longer. and trying to shame criticism with the "little girls" argument is kinda lame, lol.)

Yeah adding a badass female character =/= feminism, but she did end up being loved by a lot of the general female audience so what's wrong with that? She doesn't take away or change anything fundamental from the story. She's just a neat addition and gives more emotional weight to the stuff that's happening with Kili.

She is not any more of a Mary-Stu than Legolas since they were both pretty equal in skill except Legolas is supposedly a higher-class of elf.

Also Tauriel didn't even have several characters pining after her. The stuff with Legolas seemed more like he was an overprotective brother and they didn't push any romance into their relationship. Most of their interaction was because Thranduil only cares about his own people and Legolas was being a daddy's boy by also not approving of her trying to help the dwarves or getting involved in the outside world. A big part of Legolas character development is becoming different from his father in his world view. His behavior towards Tauriel's desire to help the dwarves/world lays a good foundation for when Legolas eventually joins a fellowship containing mixed races to save the world and becomes good friends with a dwarf.

The only 'romance' was between her and Kili. She was intrigued by him and she kept saving him at every opportunity.

Yeah, I was kinda iffy at first about her character being added with romance, but after I saw the movie the Kili x Tauriel stuff was cute seeing as how there is this theme of dwarves and elves hating each other.

Nope, the writers/adapters lose credibility by including a MS character.

You do know that a Mary Sue isn't just "a female character I don't like" right?

da

Yes - but that's not really a defense for Tauriel.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only