Me personally, I am not happy with it, due to the reasons of why they are doing it.

...it might help to include a link, or at least a brief explanation. Not everyone is following the movie updates really closely. In fact, I bet there's a fair number of people on this board who don't even know that "the Hobbit" has been split into two movies, on in December 2012, one in December 2013.

EDIT: I looked into it, and I don't see a problem. First of all, it's way too early to begin guessing what they'll do with the character. Secondly, the only listed reason I could find was "there are literally zero named female characters in the Hobbit, so we had to invent some", and unless I'm misremembering something, they are 100% correct.

Finally, and I'm going to guess that you won't like this one, things need to be changed when adapting a book into a film. For instance, I agree with removing Tom Bombadil from "The Fellowship", because (and this is the reason they gave for doing it) "he doesn't progress the story and he makes the ring seem weaker", which is absolutely true.

Likewise, having Faramir screw up and make the wrong choice at first added depth and tension to his character, which was otherwise sorely lacking - he works in the book, but left unchanged in the movie he would have been awfully boring. Also, because they ended Frodo and Sam's journey in the same place timeline-wise as the rest of the fellowship, they needed some sort of tension, and there wasn't anything in the book to pull from so they had to make it up.

Look, she's an elf, right? And from what I've read, she's showing up in Mirkwood (the meaning of her name, the comment "not romantically involved with legolas", the fact that Awren is in Rivendel and thus don't need another elf girl there, etc) . So we'll see her at the forest parties, or maybe she'll be one of the elves that grab the dwarves. Odds are she'll be involved in the added scenes within the Elf palace - you know, the scenes they have to add, because between "talk to elf king" and "escape in barrels" there's nothing but invisible Biblo running around for a month, which (again) works in literary form but not on screen (actually, it would work on screen, if it was a horror film, but its not).

Adapting A book into a film means changing the contents in lots and lots of ways. The trick is making sure the adaptation stays true to the story, which is very much not the same as staying accurate to the story. I mean, look at "the Princess Bride"; lines got moved around, scenes (and whole characters) got cut, and so on, but overall the film is amazingly true to the book. (edit edit: I feel like there should be further tangental argument about whether the abridgement is too disrespectful to the original Morganstern work, but I think that'd be too off topic).

Peter Jackson and Co. have shown they know what they are doing, so I'm prepared to trust them.

You make a couple of fine points Bob that do indeed make sense. I guess what gets me is the way some of the interviews presented the case for Tauriel. To me, and perhaps it is just because the Hobbit is my favorite book I am a bit biased, I was upset.

When they stated they "needed" a female voice I disagreed. You could definitely alter the elf scenes to add a bit more....but when they stress something like it "needs a female voice", to me it seems like they are just adding things to hit target audiences. Tolkien had viable and strong women characters in his books. The Hobbit doesn't need a woman for the sake of having a female on screen. I mean they toyed with the idea at one point of having Bard as a woman.

And to the fellow women posters, I am not being anti-woman or misogynistic (sp) but I'd feel the same way if they added any character just to appeal to an audience.

But I can lean often to the purist side which can be a flaw. The Hobbit has always been special to me. I grew up with it being read to me. It was the first "real" book I tackled on my own when I was a child. The Rankin and Bass cartoon also has a special place as well.

Anyway, just my two cents. And I apologize if my post gets misconstrued, sometimes I don't explain as well as I'd like when writing.

And a quick aside...I was one of the sad people who was bummed out Ol' Tom Bombadil and Fatty Lumpkin didn't make an appearance. I understood...but...again he is one of my all-time favorites. He's up there with Boromir and Bilbo.

I'll agree that "need" is probably a little strong; at the same time, it's like you said: Tolkien made a point of including a strong female lead in LotR, was one of the first successful authors to do so (published 1955ish), and probably would have included more if he thought he could have gotten away with it. I have difficulty believing he would object to the inclusion of a similar strong female character in The Hobbit (published in the 1930s and aimed at children), so I have difficulty understanding why one would object to it.

Being upset about Tom or Faramir I understand; I don't agree, for the reasons I listed above, but I understand - Tom got dropped entirely, and Faramir was changed in a rather fundamental way.

This one change, though... without knowing what they're doing, without actually seeing it, it just doesn't make sense to me. I don't get why one would worry about it.

I come down on the side of not caring, with a caveat. The movie isn't the book. The movie/tv show is never the book.
The caveat being what role she takes in the movie. If she's used purely fan service, (which I strongly doubt) I would be disappointed. If she's used for a short cut to get narrative exposition from the page onto the screen, (which I strongly suspect) I doubt any but the more hardcore purists will have a problem with it.
It's not unlike the "sexposition" scenes in the Game of Thrones show. If you have to cut chapters but still include the relevant information from the those chapters, you may need to invent a character (Ros) to do so.
And if you have to invent a character, why not use a naked red-head?

So, what, you don't like that Fili is now Fili Maria Delgado Javier Marquez de la Montaña Solitaria, the wisecracking Mexican dwarf played by Carlos Mencia?

ow Ow OW... Coca-cola up the nose!!! Coca-cola up the nose!!!

Thanks for the laugh! I needed that today

On the off topic of Game of Thrones...that is why I don't watch. I'm not a fan of all the sex and nudity. I am not to savy on the books so I cannot comment on how they are in similarity.

As for the Fili joke. I chuckled. But yes, I wouldn't want that. I don't know, perhaps I read too much into things, but if someone just added a character to hit a target...I'd feel kind of offended. To me it seems they are dumbing it down and adding something I can understand that I couldn't otherwise.

Hence why I have more respect for a piece of work that sets itself apart at its core for meaning or message without the need to tack something on.

Anyway, as Bob pointed out, who knows how it will turn out in its entirety.

the story - book or movie - does not *need* a women. However, one part of the target audience may wish to see one.

That said...there are a lot of minor and faceless elves in the book, so rolling them up to one elf who gets tricked by Bilbo and later takes a lead role in the battle of 5 armies is no big deal. Given Jackson's mangling LotR, I doubt he'll stop there.

-Jeff

The Game of Thrones TV show is positively tame in comparison to the books.

Regarding Jackson and his changes to The Hobbit--Peter Jackson has been one of my favorite directors ever since "Heavenly Creatures." He still has a ton of goodwill from me after his Lord of the Rings movies, which I absolutely adored. I have full faith that he won't ruin anything in The Hobbit.

When Bilbo's hiding out in King Thranduil's Halls, he's there for weeks, stealing food and generally killing time. I suspect the new character will appear during that period to give a face to the elves, help show the passing of time and show the elves' softer side (compared to Thranduil's harshness).

vs

That's a very good point; Thrandul is a major jerk to the Dwarves. His behavior is understandable, given their history, how they encountered each other, and Thorin's general hostileness, but he cerainly wasn't nice or likable. Seeing as how the audience is supposed to sympathize with the Elves during the final confrontation (and understand, if not agree with, Bilbo's actions) as well as start rooting for them during the climatic battle, there will need to be several elves involved that the audience actually likes; this little elfling sounds like she's custom-built to fill that requirement.

Please don't make her angsty like movie Legolas. I want elves who sit in trees, taunting dwarven beards and joke about fetching the sun in order to melt snow.

And please don't don't don't make her a love interest for anyone. Adding a main character is a bit risky but including a woman in order to have someone heterosexually shaggable to the otherwise all male cast is a serious offence to good taste.

I wonder how they are going to include her as a somewhat large friendly character without totally change major plot points. It is rather hard to include an elf to befriend to befriend as the total diplomatic disasters between Thorins party and the wood elves are very important. If Tauriel befriends Bilbo, Thorin and Co before getting captured by the elves she would probably be able to talk some sense in both them and the rest of the elves. Unless her standing among the other silvans are very bad.

If she befriends them during or after their imprisonment she is helping a bunch of fugitives against her kings rather reasonable request to know what the hell the dwarves where doing in his forest.

But she might fit rather nice as a companion to Gandalf who joins at Rivendell, departs with him before the others enter Mirkwood and later returns at the battle of five armies.

By the way. I found a rather nice article about Legolas that learned me rather a lot about silvan elves.

http://www.squidoo.com/legolas-mirkwood