Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

At first I was horrified at the whole idea of a newly invented elf having such a main role in 'The Desolation of Smaug'. But in the movie she wasn't too bad...what do you think?

I think the whole elf/dwarf love triangle was ridiculous and had no point being in the movie. Sticking in an extra ninja elf I can live with (she could have done some funky stuff in the Battle of 5 Armies), but not them drooling all over each other after 5 minutes of conversation.

Also, I'm fairly sure that if Thranduil found the Captain of his guard ignoring His Majesties orders and doing her own thing, she would have been demoted to scullery maid for years!

I agree!

Elentarri wrote: "I think the whole elf/dwarf love triangle was ridiculous and had no point being in the movie. Sticking in an extra ninja elf I can live with (she could have done some funky stuff in the Battle of ..."

I so agree!! I tried to give her a chance, but that love triangle ruined that movie. She irritated me so much, I hate her!! She was just so unbelievable as an elf to me, especially the healing scene...ugh so cheesy. I was cringing the whole time. When Arwen did it it was beautiful because there wasn't this creepy 'they're in love for no reason at all' bs. This time it just felt like a rip off of LOTR. (view spoiler)[I really hope that she dies in the next movie. Who knows if they're actually going to stick to the book and kill off Kili, Fili and Thorin, but I can totally see them making some really cheesy dying in each others arms nonsense with Tauriel and Kili. I wouldn't even care as long as she dies..wow, that sounds cruel haha (hide spoiler)]

Thranduil didn't impress me either. He was just off - in looks and manners. He sounded like a wimpy, spoiled brat instead of a regal King. It almost seems like the real Thranduil was out doing more important things and an imposter had taken his place.

Barbara wrote: "They probably had him acting like that because it would appeal to all these impressionable young girls who want to get all creamy and write an abundance of really bad YA, immature fanfiction.

"

I thought that was why they included Legolas and the ninja-elf-chick + dwarf love triangle crap?

BTW - there were tonnes of really immature fanfic involving members of the LOTR fellowship bonking each other behind the bushes at every opportunity BEFORE the movies came out, so I somehow don't see why the movie people have to include anything to encourage the silly fanfic writers. They manage to imagine all sorts of stuff without additional help.

You realize that most artists throughout history did things for the money. Shakespeare wrote his plays because he needed money. Heck, the reason Tolkien wrote the Hobbit in the first place was to make money. So saying they put Tauriel in just to make money, even if it is true, says nothing about her actual function in the story.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with The Tolkien Professor, especially his podcasts analyzing the film:


I thought Tauriel worked in the story, giving us various perspectives from the Mirkwood elves from the isolationist (Thranduil) to the interventionist (Tauriel). And I didn't see it as a love triangle or even as romantic love, it just seemed to be a dwarf greatly admiring an elf, in some way similar to Gimli-Galadriel.

If you read the biography of J.R.R. Tolkien by Humphrey Carpenter or the one by Michael White, David, you will learn the truth about how The Hobbit came to be published. He wrote it originally to amuse himself and his children. It would have been left by him, unfinished, in a drawer, if not for a woman, named Elaine Griffiths, who was once a pupil of his, and who got a job working for the publishers, George Allen and Unwin in London, because of his recommendation, on the revision of Clark Hall's translation of Beowulf. Elaine Griffiths told a member of George Allen and Unwin's staff, named Susan Dagnall, that her old professor, J.R.R. Tolkien, had an unfinished but remarkable children's story that he kept in a drawer in his house in Oxford. So Susan Dagnall visited Tolkien in his house, asked if she could read his unfinished manuscript, and after he gave it to her, she took it back to London, read it, and decided that it was certainly worthy of consideration by George Allen and Unwin. The year was 1936, and Tolkien had left his story unfinished, just after the death of the dragon, Smaug. So Susan Dagnall sent the manuscript back to Tolkien, and asked him to finish his story. Encouraged by her, he did, and it was published in 1937. So you see, David, Tolkien did not, as you wrote, write The Hobbit "in the first place to make money." He wrote it to entertain himself and his children. He did not think of it as a story that could be published as a book. We have two women, Elaine Griffiths and Susan Dagnall, to thank for the publication of The Hobbit. Shakespeare did need money, as we all do, but I think it is wrong of you to suggest that he wrote such plays as King Lear, Othello, The Tempest, The Merchant of Venice and Hamlet for money alone. If he wanted to make money from the theatre and nothing more, he could have just written plays that would please his audiences. As it was, his plays were popular, and they still are, essentially because they are good tales, well written. Now of course, they are praised, not so much for their plots, but because they contain speeches in blank verse and rhyme that are some of the best ever written in the English language or any other, for that matter. Shakespeare, like Tolkien, was a true artist, who just happened to make money out of what he did. As for Tauriel in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, I think it should be remembered that one of the script writers of the film is a woman. There are no women at all in the book, The Hobbit, so perhaps she thought there ought to be at least one in the films. Tauriel adds nothing to the film, I think, other than making it longer than it ought to be, but she does not spoil it, either.

BTW: I don't think Tolkien made much money out of his books. One of the reasons he sold the movie rights was to get money because he was desperately needed it. If you read the Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, there are quite a few that mention lack of funds or needing extra cash for one reason or another or taking on extra duties at his college to get extra money. Tolkien was by no means "rolling in dough" or "sitting on a pile of gold".

J.R.R. Tolkien sold the movie rights to The Lord of the Rings mostly so he could pay the school fees for his grandchildren, it says in his biography by Humphrey Carpenter. When The Lord of the Rings became a bestseller in America and Europe in the 1960's, J.R.R. Tolkien was rich enough to retire from his post as professor at Oxford. Being the father of four children and living on a professor's pay meant that before The Lord of the Rings became really popular in the 1960's, after originally being published in 1954, he often grumbled in his letters about not having enough money to support himself and his family. From 1965 onwards, however, until he died in 1973, he enjoyed being a wealthy man, due to the thousands of copies sold of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, mostly in America, able to do such things as go on holiday to Venice with his daughter, Priscilla, and buy a car for his son.

I really liked her, she was a good strong female character and the romance between her and Kili was adorable.

I really didn't mind Tauriel being placed as a new character in the movie. She brought a new element to the story and it was nice to see the connection between her and Kili. I am very curious to see how the third movie will turn out. =)

I didn't mind her, but I see the books and the movies as totally separate - they just don't compare to me at all! I'm glad she didn't die but I'm also glad that she didn't have any kind of a thing with Legolas - I think they saw each other as siblings more than lovers, really, and Thranduil was just mistaken. I was fine with the whole Kili/Tauriel thing, especially because Legolas and Gimli will go on to have a similar dynamic (not necessarily romantic but very very close) in LOTR so it was good for Legolas to see that was possible.

Elizabeth wrote: "I didn't mind her, but I see the books and the movies as totally separate - they just don't compare to me at all! I'm glad she didn't die but I'm also glad that she didn't have any kind of a thing ..."

This is actually my biggest ishue with Tauriel/Kili. The friendship between Legolas and Gimli was a huge thing. It was so great BECAUSE it didn't happen for a long lon while. It where Gimli and Legolas who got over the hatred and/or distrust between elves and Dwarves. They where so awesome because they did this, on their own. Not because of Tauriel (and OC) and Kili. The whole romance completely takes away the strenght/importance and wonder of the friendship between Gimli and Legolas. I do not mind new characters or anything else that is added that is not in the orginal works, as long as they follow one rule. The new characters and new plots can not, ever, take away from the importance of real characters/original plots. Tauriel and Kili all but destroyed how wonderfull and amazing Gimli and Legolas where. Now it seemes the only reason Legolas became friends with Gimli was because he saw it before. Not out of his own. And that is very very wrong. Tauriel steals teh credit of legolas. Not from Tolkien fans of course who see the books as truth. But ignorent fans will see it this way. And that is just very unfair to both Legolas and gimli. they should get all the credit they deserve for their friendship. Not tauriel and Kili. It also takes away worth from the romance between Aragorn and Arwen. Elves loving mortals is supposed to be very rare. It was what made Aragorn and Arwen so special. But now that also seems worth much less.I would not have minded an elf.dwarf romance at all, had it happend AFTER the lord of the rings. But before just ruins the great parts of Aragorn/Arwen and Legolas + Gimli. I do not hate Tauriel as a character, what I hate is how they used her. Had she just been a kick ass lady, withoud taking any spotlight from the Aragorn/arwen romance or Legolas/Gimli friendship, I would have loved her. But because she hurts canon relationships and she is just bad writing and a mary sue. To young/with to high a position, with to much unrealistic skils (as in both warrior and healer!!!! grr) and has rare red hair AND has a romance with a dwarf (which by the way was written way to rushed) and is probably the reason they made Thranduil seem so bad so she could look cooler. Thranduil is not nearly this bad in the book. This also bothers me. And another thing that bothers me, was that by Putting Kili with Tauriel, they sacrifised the family moments he should have had with Fili and Thorin. Those 3 are family, yet so little is this shown or worked out. SO every scene I see of Tauriel and Kili makes me want to attack the screen, for it is unfair to Legolas/Gimli/Aragorn/Arwen and even Thranduil, and it ruins my 1 wish of these movies, to see the 3 relatives and their strong bond on screen so that the last chapter of their tale is all the more powerfull. I am all for a kick ass lady. BUt only if she is written well and believable, and Tauriel contradicts not only Tolkiens work, but undermines it as well and is written in a poor poor way. Has she been older, with brown hair, not a healer (only a warrior) withoud romance, I would have loved her very much. But being familiar with Tolkiens work, she not only is dislikable to me, she also is impossible. regardless if people like her or not, technically she simply is not possible. So many things that ate supposed to be rare she is/or can do. It makes her unbelievable. I can not see her as canon because of this. Had she been written in such a way she actually fitted Tolkiens version of middle earth, I would have been thrilled to have a strong woman in our mids. The hobbit is a tale overrun with males. But I would prefer a men's tale only any day, over a version of this tale whith a woman like Tauriel in it that speaks more ill about woman then love. Also what message is it to little girls, that the ''strong'' woman leaves behind her kin and those who take care of her (family in a way) for a boy she just met? That is not strong, that is stupid. In real life anyway. But I have ranted long enough. I do not hate Tauriel because she was not in the book. I hate her for ruining what WAS in the book and the books that followed. Had she not been written as such a mary sue, in such a fanfiction kind of way, but a way worthy of Tokiens world, I would not have had these ishues. The fact SO MANY people hate/dislike her or are dissapointed in how she was used proves they made a huge mistake. And finally, I am also angry for Tauriel. I dislike her, but only because of their stupid handeling of her. She deserved much more then she got. Tauriel could have been truly awesome, loved and accepted much more much easyer, had they handeld her with more care. It really does make you wonder if Jackson's team had ANY Tolkien fans working on the script and her character, because the amount of mistakes made with her say otherwise. She DID ruin the hobbit for me. Which is sad, because she wouldn't have had people more loyal to Tokiens work written her. I do not OC characters. Only when they are written badly withoud any regard to the original work. To me the movies where fun, but not half of what they could have been. So I find myself in a love hate relationship with them. Elves are my favorite specie, Dwarves my least. I still desired much much more of the dwarves and their relations to eachother, and less of the mary sue, less of the ooc Legolas. The hobbit has been unkind to the elves, and untrue. For this I cannot forgive Jackson and his team. These 3 movies do not fit the lord of the rings movies, and will not consider them to be part of the same world. I will watch them and ejoy them as an AU fanfiction version of the book, Like I enjoy reading actual fanfictions. But I will never see this version as the true hobbit tale. And Hope many fans will join me in this. I hope these hobbit movies have not ruind the true version for people. I hope people will not ever believe Legolas befriended Gimli because of Tauriel. That would be such an insult and downplay of the strenght and importance of their friendship. I will die before I let their friendship be rememberd wrong. Tauriel shall not EVER get the credit for it, as long as I can help it. I will defend the truth of their friendship for as long as I live. Because their friendship was to teach us humans an importand lesson. A much more importand lesson then Tauriel tought us. Betraying your kin for a boy you just met, is not powerfull a message. Spending months and months fighting and traveling side by side, starting with Ill feelings, only to slowly devolp and grow into respect and friendship so strong Gimli traveld with him to the undying lands as old dwarf, showing how generations of raised distrust and anger can be overcome if you just look beyond that which you where tought, thats a strong message. People who are racist to other people can grow from their tale. But it will lose stenght and meaning when people think it only happend because some girl fell in love first and ditched everyone for him. It's a terrible message. You do not need to betray those you hold dear, to find room and frienship in unlikely places. Gimli and Legolas show us this. Tauriel and Kili do not. I would time travel and become part of Tauriels creation if I could. Because I know for certain i could have written her in such a way she could have become a worthy role model for girls, a powerfull warrior, and a beloved character withoud robbing or changing any of the real characters their true purpose/worth and story. End rant. Peace out.

Didn't really like her. If she was just a guard in Mirkwood, that would have been fine. She was pretty much only there for the very unneeded romance plot. In the third film, she overshadows Fili (one of the more important characters!)

I loved the fact that there was another strong female in the film. I think young girls need that. Tauriel was just as skilled as Legolas. However, I didn't particularly care for the love triangle. It made Legolas harder to understand. I wished that the dwarves had actually taken a larger role in their quest. There were too many other things going on and Kili/Tauriel just seemed ridiculous.

And hers was really the only character with no resolution. Everyone else's presence or absence in LOTR is smoothly explained. But what happened to her?

She went to give that Rune stone to Dis. Then ran into Orcs on the way back. At least, that's what I think happened.

I have only seen the first and second instalments of "The Hobbit", but to answer the question. She more or less impressed me as fan-fiction, really. She's a good character, though.

I agree, I liked the character and didn't feel too grumpy about adding her in light of the other additions. I just was disappointed that she didn't get much resolution aside from last being seen grieving over Fili (Kili? whichever). Every other addition, in light of the films as opposed to the books, made sense.

I was not thrilled to meet Tauriel, but do like Evangeline Lilly. I think her presence gave a little bit of a backstory as to why Legolas ended up as one of members in the Fellowship of the Ring..I often wondered why he would travel so far from his home, stay with Aragon and not call for help from the Woodland Elves when the darkness came. It always seemed to me, from the books, that the Woodland Elves were VERY clannish-and to send a rep, the King's son, seemed a bit off. Of course, this is part of the "stretched storyline" of the Hobbit, but I do find it plausible.

I actually really liked Tauriel eventough the whole thing between her and Kili was a bit weird... I mean, it was cute and all but they didn't really fit..

The thing (I'm about to sound weird) that stood out to me most was the hight difference. Like... Uuuuhmmmm...
Next weirdest thing is why was Kili even chosen if he's gonna DIE?!

I really do not like Tauriel. For one thing she is 600, a baby compared to the other elves, so why would Thranduil choose her to be captain of the guard? Also Thranduil obviously doesn't like her, so he would have fired her ages ago. On top of that Evangeline Lily insisted on having knee length red hair, which is really rare with elves, and ridiculously large elf ears? Galadiel is meant to have the longest most beautiful hair in Arda, not Tauriel! Her character does not fit it with the rest of Middle Earth.

The scenes with Tauriel and Kili made me cringe! Seriously? Not to mention that it completely undermines Gimli and Legolas'(non romantic) relationship.

Now let's talk about Tauriel's personality! She runs off, compromising the security of the Woodland Realm, and completely ignores the people of Laketown when Smaug attacks. Plus she fails to kill anyone important and just sits there crying when Kili dies.

Just a quick point about Thranduil and Legolas' Aragorn conversation. Strider was a name given to Aragorn by Barliman Butterbur, who works as the inkeeper at the Prancing Pony in Bree. How on earth did Thranduil come to call him by that? I can't imagine him going off to Bree to spend his holidays there!!! And plus in LOTR, Legolas went to Rivendell to bring the news of Gollum's escape from the Woodland Realm, or if you have only watched the films, was summoned to the Council of Elrond to discuss the fate of Middle Earth. I do not see how Tauriel made Legolas end up in the Fellowship of the Ring.

NB. This is my opinion

I have read Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit every year for decades. I can honestly say I hate her character. I walked out of the theatre mid movie snd have never bothered to see the rest. The whole elf/dwarf love story left a bad taste in my mouth.

So I don't know if what I'm going to say has already been said in this discussion, but I think I can defend Tauriel on a few points (don't hate me!). One, there are ZERO female characters in The Hobbit as written by Tolkien. I'm not saying this is a fault - he wrote it for his young sons who probably weren't all that interested in female characters, but I think it's understandable and even commendable that Peter Jackson and team decided to add a strong female character (and I think Tauriel is a fairly strong character) into their movie. Two, it's true that we never see any elf dwarf romance in Tolkien's world, but we have similar instances. There's Gimli's love for Galadriel, and there's Beren and Luthien, Tuor and Idril, and Aragorn and Arwen. There's also the strong friendship between Legolas and Gimli. So I don't think an elf dwarf romance is as far out there as we might at first think. Another personal reason for me liking the elf dwarf romance was that it gave us a break from the almost nonstop action and ridiculous / rather pointless fight sequences. I was just grateful to get some old fashioned character development, wherever it came from. So if you still don't like Tauriel, you're entitled to not like her and I'm not trying to change your mind; I'm just saying there are some valid reasons for her presence in the films and she's not all bad in the end.

Tauriel is such a strong character and I simply love how Peter Jackson portrays her within the Hobbit movies!


..the part that always breaks my heart, is when Kili dies!



"{Tauriel} - if this is love I don't want it, take it from me.."

"Why does it hurt so much?"

{Thranduil} - Because it was real�




My Quote by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche encapsulates the feelings that Tauriel is experiencing

..

"Those Who Dance Are Considered Insane by Those Who Can’t Hear the Music!"


Or, basically --

how the reality of this world disappears all at once, and we feel ourselves in the middle of a subconscious trance-like state.

I know that there were many old-school, traditionalists who found Jackson's insertion of a new love interest between the races kind of fluffy, but I enjoyed his underscoring the tragedy and sadness at the heart of the elven soul, which is the tradgedy of living forever. Tauriel was certainly not the first elven woman to fall in love with a mortal being. Elrond's mother did so. Arwen also took on mortality for love, though the legend has it that she and her king lived unnaturally long lives by human standards. I appreciated Jackson bringing dwarves into this embrace as well.

Elentarri wrote: "I think the whole elf/dwarf love triangle was ridiculous and had no point being in the movie. Sticking in an extra ninja elf I can live with (she could have done some funky stuff in the Battle of 5..."

Well said!!!

I had no idea this thread was even here. Just for sake of ranting (as I have for the last several years since the movies came out) I will say again, Tauriel's inclusion in these films was a stupid, greedy, money-hungry ploy to be politically correct by adding a non-Tolkien female character. I am ashamed of Peter Jackson for such a move and I can hear Tolkien rolling over in his grave. Her character had potential but it was quashed by turning her into a love interest with Kili. Just simply tragic.

I agree Shellie. Its very tragic. Tolkien would not appreciate that love story at all. And there is nothing more unlikely than love between a dwarf and an elf. I think Peter Jackson was focused on a money than he was on quality.

Fun Fact: Peter Jackson admitted that he hadn't a clue what he was doing throughout the making of The Hobbit and originally, the movie was supposed to be only a dual picture, but just for the sake of the battle sequence in BOTFA, he pretty much said "Screw it, we're making this a trilogy," so that would account for Tauriel's character... she was only supposed to be filler material just so they could stretch the film adaptation into a trilogy.

To me the worst part of Tauriel was not that she was invented, but how badly she was handled. She had such a potential. She was an elf who fall in love with a dwarf. It is such a daring thing for an elf to do, in the world where elves are basically given orders to stop messing around in Arda and go to Valinor.

We have only three cases of elf and mortal love affairs, and all three cases are very significant. We have of course Luthien, my personal favorite for being so amazing as to face Morgoth, and Sauron. We have Idril, not as famous but whose story still is a legend, and her son is none other but Earendil. And we have Arwen.

But Tauriel doesn't fall in love with a man, she falls in love with a dwarf. And to top it all she does it in the kingdom of Sindarin elves, who still probably remember their king Thingol being killed by the dwarfs in the first Age. So it is a riot, a rebellion, something that didn't happen before.

The theme in all Tolkien's works, as it is in many epic adventures, and in myths, is fate � things don't happen just because. So here we have an elf who does a vary daring thing... and then nothing, not even a splash in history. She could be so much more. Heck, if you are going to introduce such a character you should go all the way � she could've been the one to make peace between elves and dwarfs, she could've at least died in a properly significant manner, she could have even been the one to kill the dragon (although I think the fans would riot at that)

What I am saying is that her fate should have been great, for daring to do what she did, instead she became a frigging love interest, not even a proper character. And that is very disappointing, for the world you love so much to be handled without the love and understanding it deserves � there are tons of scholars who might have helped with the plot. But no, it's this farce.

So yes, I do believe it was done terribly and am very disappointed.

Sorry, a bit of an old discussion, but I just came round to actually watching the movies, and was searching for some discussions�.

I thought she was a good character and I understand why Peter Jackson chose to have a badass female character. The problem I have is the stupid love triangle plot that Tolkien would’ve never accepted in the story. It was so badly done!

The worst things are done with the best intentions. Exactly what I thought.

I think that Tauriel was a well needed character when we litary have no female main characters in The Hobbit. I love how badass she is and im not super mad about the love triangle either if i shuld be honest. But im not a fan about how its made. I dont like how they put Legolas that is one of Tolkiens most popular and main character in it becuse it is just so far from Tolkiens work and mixes up it all. Like its not the Legolas Tolkien made. I think it would be better if Peter Jackson either would have put in an less well knowed character in there or just made up a new on like Tauriel up so that not like the hole story changes as much. But I really love the family drama between Thraduil and Legolas we gets so i cant say im super mad about it either. I also like how sad it makes it all and the end gets me every time but we also have Bilbos and Torins goodbye and story that is even sader so it was not super needed (But i still likes it) . I am not upset by the "forbidden" romance we gets between an elf and an dwarf but its not super needed either when we alredy have a strong relalationship between an dwarf and an elf in Tolkiens Lord of the rings but im not mad about 2 and we dont have one in The Hobbit so its okay. This got all over the place and i just dont really know I have so mixed up feelings about the love triangle but I still just love both the book and the movies so much. And i really think we needed Tauriel with or without the stupid love triangle.

I agree with Anne. No problem with Tauriel's addition but I think the love triangle or any romance detracted from her character. Just because you add a female character doesn't mean she needs to be a love interest for a main character. Let her stand alone. Including Legolas in the movie was a smart decision, whether or not it was executed correctly. Legolas should be in The Hobbit, even if it's a minor mention, it makes sense. He probably wasn't created yet by Tolkien to make an appearance.

I mostly agree with Maja. She could have been a truly great addition to perhaps the greatest imagined world ever created. Diminishing her to love interest in a badly executed love triangpe plot was what ruined the 2nd and 3rd movie for me. I need also say however that I wouldn't have minded her addition to the movies if she wasn't reduced to a love interest. Sure, the world of Tolkien is self-sufficient on its own, but adding a brave female figure wouldn't be something that the Professor would have minded so much were he still alive. I believe however that he would seriously object to the love triangle plot or the romance plot in general.
In the end, I'm glad to be able to communicate my thoughts on this issue since it's been a while since I watched the movies and been able to find people who would be open to discussion.

Honestly I think people blaming (part of) The Hobbit's disastrous-ness on Tauriel is misplaced. The main thing that messed up the trilogy was the fact that it was a trilogy when it should have been one or two movies. Tauriel had so much potential! I agree that The Hobbit needed some female characters and they wanted to stay true to the source material (although I think changing a couple of the dwarf men to women would have been a nice touch without changing the plot at all). The terribly executed love triangle though? Completely unnecessary.

I still do not understand this compulsion to add female characters, particularly "strong" ones (strong only being defined in a masculine way), to stories that do not have them. The original story is highly enjoyable as is. What purpose does this serve? To me, it is mere pandering. I think Tolkien would have minded most of the changes made in these films. If he had had the time and inclination to alter it, it would have been to incorporate it more fully with his Faerie mythology, rather than turning it into a swashbuckling romantic adventure. I get that they had to make some changes, as the majority of characters, particularly the dwarves, were not well fleshed out, but I don't think he would have appreciated the ones they made.

As a woman, I believe the story was enjoyable without any women characters. I get that some women need to feel represented in some way but it's really not necessary for every story. I completely disagree with changing some of the dwarf characters into females. I know they do it all the time in comic books, etc, and I think it's disrespectful to the characters & their fans. If a particular group needs more representation, make a new character and give them their own identity. The character Tauriel was fine, it's the forced romance that does not fit in the movie.

Okay, was not going to comment but will anyway...

Like replacing Glorfindel with Arwen in the LOTR movies introducing Tauriel into The Hobbit movies was an artistic license I will accept as “Hollyweird� elements.

Her character was full of plot holes but it was not as bad as the redundant “magic ninja� elements in the movie. The Dwarf-Elf crush thing was less frustrating than the World of Warcraft elements and the whole messing with the Azog and Bolg lineage. Legolas was not jarring in the Hobbit movie except that Jackson constantly trying top the sliding on the trunk of the Oliphant aspect.

Having read LOTR since the Ace plagiarism versions and owning multiple extended versions of the Jackson LOTR movies (9 I think thanks to EBay) which we watch at least once a year I think I can say, despite my preference for the books, that LOTR was well done and the Hobbit Movie was... meh.

As a long time fan of all all things Dwarf, just look at my original 1974 D&D player characters through this year for example, the breaking up of the party in Lake Town was worse than the YA style instant love aspect.

In response to replacing Glorfindel with Arwen I found that less "Hollyweird" and more plot driven. Unlike Tauriel, Arwen's character already existed and Jackson was combining characters to reduce budget on casting and give Arwen more things to do. There are some differences between the two inclusions. I agree with you on your summary of Tauriel in the movie.

I personally do not like Tauriel at all, and I'm annoyed that Peter Jackson put her in the Hobbit and created a love triangle with her, Legolas, and Kili

I enjoyed having a female Elve fall in love with a dwarf. It was not too much and didn’t take away from anything, it just added a touch is all. I still think the focus was on the company and getting their home back, it didn’t bother me at all!

Despite loving the Lord of The Rings movies and specifically the way that Peter J. found a way of exploring the romantic relationship between Arwen and Aragorn and successfully integrating it in the motion picture, I'm sure that including Tauriel was one of the major mistakes made by Peter J. when making The Hobbit movies.
I assure you that I truly love and admire what Peter J. made with Lord of The Rings, turning those almost perfect books into unforgettable and marvelous movies.
On the other hand, and I cant figure out why, he completely wasted his opportunity with The Hobbit..
It was just a mess, and Tauriel was one of the contributing elements for The disastrous and sometimes almost unbearable to watch Hobbit movies.

His biggest mistake was to use The same fórmula for The Hobbit as he did with The Lord of The Rings.
I truly believe he was seduced to make those movies by Warner (€€�). its very diferent from being really inspired and count on New Line Cinema after numerous efforts.

Sorry for my long comment, sometimes in a bad English, but just to conclude, The Hobbit was a mix of trying to engage some people with nostalgia and others with visual splendor. As movies they didnt work - thats exactly The same for Tauriel existance and its unconfortable, forced and cringe relationship with Kili.

It didn’t bother me, it wasn’t too much , it added a little touch and didn’t necessarily take away from anything

Jackie wrote: "every scene I see of Tauriel and Kili makes me want to attack the screen"

That's me with the whole movie.