[ SECRET POST #2541 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

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.)

[(Anonymous)]

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.