Should they have given Arwen the extra scene?

[Theodopolis]

Do you believe that PJ should have given Arwen the scene of crossing the ford and the flood smothering the RingWraiths?
Yes or No?

[Curufinwe]

I find that I would of preferred to of seen another cool elf instead of her. But the reaso they gave her a larger part was because
1. less cast members had to be chosen or mioney given out
2. because she has a larger part in the later ones that people would say that she like came out of nowhere and novbody would remember her.

[ReadWryt]

Bah! Wait till you see her swinging her sword on horseback at Helm's Deep...

[Bombur]

That makes me shudder because Arwen wasn't even in the Battle of Helm's Deep.:mad: Eowyn wasn't even there!!

[Rian]

PJ missed out on one of Frodo's most heroic moments. I would've prefered Frodo facing the Ringwraiths alone and saying, "You shall have neither the Ring nor Me!"

[Oridin]

I agree that in the scene of bravery at the river, the name which is lost in beers(lol), should have belonged to Frodo. Arwen is hardly mentioned in the Fellowship. Maybe greed to have another big name star in the movie was the motivation to install her in the scene, maybe not. Still, the heroic cry of Frodo at the river was great and a turning point of emotion, on my part. I do see a comical reason why it wouldn't have worked(thnx to my friends who went w/me to see the movie). A little person atop a large elven horse, saying you won't get me or the ring, Frodo being half dead at this point, it does seem to rouse some humor. You never know and maybe someone should ask PJ about that. I would if given the chance. I don't think he was an avid reader since an avid reader wouldn't do such a ridiculous thing as put Arwen on the saddle. Anyway, I've talked much and there's more to read at this site. Thnx n bye to all.

[Legolam]

I've thought about this long and hard and, even though I was horrified when I saw it the first time, I can understand why PJ did it.

The scene works much better in the book, but Arwen had to be introduced somehow, and Glorfindel never really features again. Hollywood needed a female character, and I think Liv Tyler did well in the role, and it worked for a modern audience. If you didn't know the books it's probably a better scene to watch, although her line at the Ford is TERRIBLE!!! I cringed.

So yes, I admit it, I voted YES. Sorry :D

[bunnywhippit]

I voted yes, much of my reasoning is the same as Legolams. It did seem to tidy things up a bit, from the films point of view, but LORD! "If you want him, come a claim him!" - eek! Sorry, that was just a little too Hollywood for me as well. You cringed Legolam? I tried my best not to cover my ears and scream. :D Did they really have to put it in all the trailers? It seemed done to death. I thought Liv did very well though, beautifully done... and all that Elvish. :D

[DGoeij]

For Arwen's sake (I mean Tolkiens Arwen) I voted yes. She deserved at least some attention, being the love of Aragorn. But the way it was done in this movie, that just ticks me off. It hung in the balance, tough question.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
I find that I would of preferred to of seen another cool elf instead of her. But the reaso they gave her a larger part was because
1. less cast members had to be chosen or mioney given out
2. because she has a larger part in the later ones that people would say that she like came out of nowhere and novbody would remember her. Cur... have you read the book? No Elf, neither Arwen nor anyone else takes Frodo to the Ford. It was Frodo's scene not Glorfindel's, not Legolas' and certainly not Arwen's. But I do agree with your logic. It was done to introduce Arwen earlier to audiences and to build her characters presence and courage (blah!) for the movies to come. I don't agree with it but do understand it.

[DGoeij]

Grond is very ancient, but not a dinosaur. He's the Hammer of the Underworld.:D
Besides from that, he's one tough customer in a debate, wich a lot of people do not seem to like very much. But he's a honest fellow, able to admit mistakes. He doesn't change his opinion overnight, but he sure does appreciate a good argument.
And he doesn't think in black and white about the movie and the book.

[Greenwood]

DGoeij

I concur in your opinion of Grond. Grond and I agree on various points and disagree on others, but I have always found him open to discussion, unlike a few others who claim the title of purist. [LATER EDIT: A few of the film's defenders have been just as difficult as some of the self-proclaimed purists.]

[Grond]

Originally posted by Grond
...It was done to introduce Arwen earlier to audiences and to build her characters presence and courage (blah!) for the movies to come. I don't agree with it but do understand it. I think my own quote shows that I both accept and understand the change. A dinosaur I may be, but at the least I am a humble dinosaur who knows right from wrong and when to speak and when to shut up, unlike a few others on this forum.

By the way Cur, I did not mean to jump on your statement. If I sounded sarcastic or ill mannered, I apologize. It seems that so many people think that Arwen is actually taking a scene from Glorfindel when, in fact, it is Frodo's own scene she is stealing.

[ReadWryt]

Its too bad people like Harad can not discuss the thread without making personal attacks.

[Minas]

I understand why Arwen got the job. Hey they had to use her somewhere in the movie so she didn't have to make PJ's coffee all the time.
I vote No nonetheless as Frodo's Fighting spirit in his Character got decimated throughout the movie as I've pointed out earlier.

[Oridin]

I just noticed Arwen is hardly mentioned in the Second book. Will the Second movie do as the first and stretch her role? Though in the Third book Arwen is more than a whisper from afar, nonetheless her part is minimal save for the end. Will the Third movie do as such the First and maybe the Second. It's my guess that PJ will or have done so already. Money talks, I guess.

[Grond]

My understanding is that Arwen will bring Anduril and the standard she made for Aragorn to him at Helm's Deep. This may not all be correct but she will surely make an appearance of this kind in The Two Towers. :)

[Samwise_hero]

No i don't reckon they should have because now they've left Glorfindel out. Where's he supposed to fit in?????

[Snaga]

I am probably going to be very unpopular for saying this but that chase scene is one of the best in the films - you can tell PJ is doing a great job at that point because you really care whether or not they make it.

I agree that the 'If you want him...' line was incongruous. I think it is a shame that Frodo doesn't get to show much bravery in the film - he's always getting beaten up or stabbed or whatever, and never seems to fight back, and this is not how I see him at all.

But judged as a piece of cinema, this is absolutely fantastic.

Sorry:)

[DGoeij]

Well, if you only look at it from a movie perspective, I'd say you're right. It is a very goodlooking exciting scene. Actually only Arwen's line at the end makes it less good, IMHO.
But I'm a fan of the original story, so the fact that it looked good in some ways didn't help much in me having a positive opinion about it.
Thinking movie.... it was a pretty good scene, I'll give you that.

[Beleg Strongbow]

I would have liked to see Glorfindel unclad as a mighty elf warrior.

[Anarchist]

I voted yes. If you think it the testosterone way :D the actress being Arwen is very beatiful and the chasing scene is fantastic. Ok I admit that the first time I saw this scene I was annoyed but thinking about it PJ was right introducing Arwen. It was wrong but not damaging.

[Gothmog]

I voted No to this as in my opinion what was done in the film did more damage other roles than any improvments made to Arwen's could make up for. Arwen could have been introduced early and shown to be brave and powerful very simply and without damage to the roles of the other major charaters by just giving her Glorfindel's role.

As for the chase scene I almost fell asleep because it was too long. All I wanted was for them to get it over with.

[Gerda Westerhof]

No, it's not at all how I imagined her. We all know that it was Glorfindel, one of the few great Elf-warriors, who saved Aragorn and the Hobbits in the book! And by the way, I'd loved to have seen such a strong, blond-haired Elf-prince!

Also, I did not like Frodo's part in the scene. Allthough he was severely wounded, in the book he found the strength to withstand the Ringwraths in the book and I believe that, should the movie have followed it, Frodo would gain more respect. Now he looks so feeble...

Arwen could have been introduced in the scene, after Boromir has discovered Narsil and Aragorn stands there holding the pieces.

Sorry for all you men who enjoyed Liv Tyler in her heroic role, but that's just not how I see Arwen...

[Harad]

For people who havent read the book, Arwen fits perfectly into the moive. They also might wonder, as people like me who did read the book wonder, why Glorfindel the Wonderful, never shows up again for the rest of the story. Arwen, if you can get over your expectations from the book, makes a lot of sense, and in many ways is a better character than Glorfindel. Frodo gets lots of other opportunities in the movie to show his courage.

[Gary Gamgee]

I haven't voted yet. i understand why there had to be a bigger female presence in the film and completely agree with this. But Frodo does lose alot in the film and this scene in the book was brilliant

"Go back to the land of Mordor and follow me no more"

She could have done exactly what Grolfindel does and put him on the horse.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Harad
For people who havent read the book, Arwen fits perfectly into the moive. They also might wonder, as people like me who did read the book wonder, why Glorfindel the Wonderful, never shows up again for the rest of the story. Arwen, if you can get over your expectations from the book, makes a lot of sense, and in many ways is a better character than Glorfindel. Frodo gets lots of other opportunities in the movie to show his courage.


Yes, those people who don't seem to understand what a minor character is and does in a movie might wonder that. Maybe these people would also be thinking why Celeborn the Magnificent and Haldir the Great and the numerous other useless characters at the Council of Elrond didn't join him as well.

But apparently their uselessness can be justified and Arwen, a minor character doing things out of character, replacing another minor character and doing things differently then the way that original minor character was supposed to do things, can be justified to the nth degree. :rolleyes:Harad, your leperous aversion to minor characters must have made your reading experience of LoTR miserable. "What? Why is this Glorfindel not in the rest of the book?" Let's make every minor character in the book into a major character and make LoTR 3000 pages!

Boy, if Glorfindel bothered you so much, you must have had a hard time dealing with:

1) Gildor
2) Bomabadil
3) Farmer Maggot
4) Fatty Bolger
5) Haldir
6) Ghan Buri Ghan
7) The mere mention of Cirdan, never mind not seeing him
8) Ted Sandyman
9) Lobelia Sackville-Baggins
10) Barliman Butterbur

And countless others who appear once and for no apparent reason. Your justification of editing Glorfindel because he doesn't show up later on and people will "wonder" where he is is very weak.

[Harad]

Thorin,
As you missed the whole "Searching for Glorfindel" thread, I have to forgive your ignorance of the difference between a "minor" character and a "weak" character.

Glorfindel the Great, the only Elf who came back East after Dying, the Despoiler of the Great Balrog, the Terrorizer of Nazguls, chooses and is chosen to sit out the War of the Rings at Rivendell, while other more hearty souls like Legolas do the heavy lifting. This is the very definition of a "weak" and "out-of-place" character.

I am bereft at my inability to explain what should be simple issues. Its takes my self-image down a peg or two, let me tell ya.

[Grond]

Then by your own definition Harad, Arwen too is a weak character in the book and had no business having an enhanced role in the movie. She also did nothing in the book to further the cause of the war in the east and is no stronger a character than Glorfindel. Following your line of logic again, PJ could have just as easily enhanced Glorfindel's role and made it more monumental just as he did for Arwen's.

Once again you are saying one thing out of the left side of your mouth and another thing out of the right side. Admit it, both Arwen and Glorfindel were minor characters. We have no idea whether Glorfindel or Arwen were weak characters because their exploits were not featured in the book. For all we know, both Arwen and Glorfindel led a troop of Elves to the defense of Thranduil as his kingdom was assaulted by the forces of Dol Goldur. We just don't know and you certaintly don't know. Please quit making generalizations about a character as if they are facts (Glorfindel is a weak character) when it is in fact, simply your opinion.:(

[Thorin]

What Harad still doesn't seem to accept or grasp is that Arwen is ARWEN! She should stay the Arwen that Tolkien intended. Whether Glorfindel was a "weak" character doesn't change the fact that Arwen (of all of Tolkien's characters) should not have been made to do the things that she did, in the place that she did, in the time that she did.

The only reason why that was done was for the audience to be introduced to Arwen early....The rest was typical "Hollywood" action purposes.

PJ could have created scenes to introduce Arwen to the people and still made her a viable character that stayed true to Tolkien.

It was blasphemed and until Harad can finally admit that (Whether that was a smart cinematic move or that he really liked it is beside the point)

Until Harad stops arguing like JRR meant her to do those things it is impossible to argue with him.

[Harad]

Until Harad stops arguing like JRR meant her to do those things it is impossible to argue with him.

I am using the English language, arent I? I never said what you accuse me of saying. Does it matter? I said:

I completely understand the "sacrilegious" Arwen segment, and believe that it makes the movie more accessible to general audiences, and most importantly that it perfectly congruent, in principle, with LOTR.

Can you as a person from an English-speaking country parse the difference between what I said, and what you said I said.


Then by your own definition Harad, Arwen too is a weak character in the book and had no business having an enhanced role in the movie.

By my own definition? Was Arwen the only Elf to come back from the East after being killed? Did Arwen kill the Great Balrog? Did Arwen chase Nazgul for 1000s of years? No, thats the "weak" character Glorfindel. And for the gazillionth time for anybody foolish enuf to read this, I mean "weak" in the literary sense. He was a very muscular character, indeed TOO muscular for LOTR. Arwen, on the other hand, was a MINOR character, whose role was enhanced in the movie.

[Snaga]

I get you loud and clear Harad. Once again people are indulging in their favourite sports: Thorin disagrees with anything if PJ did it, Grond disagrees with anything if you wrote it!

Another way of putting it is this: if the elf who the 4 Hobbits and Aragorn meet was ANY elf from Rivendell, regardless of history, gender, personality, anything it would have served the plot just as well. Glorfindel in the book = generic elf. At the most, he needed to be a more powerful than average elf, to justify the ability to scare the horses into the water.

Grond:For all we know, both Arwen and Glorfindel led a troop of Elves to the defense of Thranduil as his kingdom was assaulted by the forces of Dol Goldur. We just don't know and you certaintly don't know. Sorry mate but that's your worst ever argument. Do you honestly believe that JRRT would have failed to mention that? Of course not. Glorfindel and Arwen are certainly noteworthy names, whose actions JRRT would have documented if they were significant. They are just cardboard cut-outs in comparison to the major characters (e.g. members of the Fellowship).

Thorin, it is you who are impossible to argue with. You disagree with anything that is not exactly as per the book. A change is 'blasphemy'. How can anyone debate with a fundamentalist like you? One would think that your complaint boils down to this: JRRT didn't write the screen-play so its wrong.

[Grond]

In my own defense, VoK, I have agreed with Harad numerous times. I will now entirely drop my Glorfindel defense, neither will I make the mistake of invoking the "out of character" defense when referring to Arwen's enhanced role. I've decided to invoke a new defense. It is called the "show me where she does that in the book" defense. I challenge any single person in this wide, wide world of sports to show me where Arwen had any such role in the book, and with that, I rest my case. :)

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Variag of Khand
Thorin disagrees with anything if PJ did it

Thorin, it is you who are impossible to argue with. You disagree with anything that is not exactly as per the book. A change is 'blasphemy'. How can anyone debate with a fundamentalist like you? One would think that your complaint boils down to this: JRRT didn't write the screen-play so its wrong.

Oh, come on VK. Do you honestly mean to tell me that Arwen's distortion is an acceptable thing? You can't compare little changes that are not true to the book like Gandalf bumping his head or acting like a crazy old man in the Shire, or Merry and Pippin playing with Gandalf's fireworks like a Middle Earth Abbot and Costello duo, to a major distortion of a character like Arwen to justify screen time. Some changes are acceptable.. Others definitely are not...

I have no problems with many of the liberties that PJ took and in some ways he actually added something by doing those changes...However, any Tolkien fan would find serious fault in the poor handling of Arwen...As you said, ANY unkown elf of Elrond's clan would have been acceptable...Arwen was another totally different character who 1) Did not belong where she was 2) Did not belong doing the things she did or in the manner she did them in. 3) Was definitely not the way Tolkien intended her to be and created her for a good reason.

If you honestly can't say that, as a Tolkien fan who finds the book and it's characters somewhat sacred, I am justified in totally disagreeing with what PJ did in that instance, then what more can I say? I guess that I will always be a fundamentalist....

[Harad]

There's not much you can say. Arwen was an artistic invention of Peter Jackson, known as a composite character by those who are familiar with Film as a medium. The film Arwen was completely consistent with a character that might have come directly from LOTR with minor, if any, nit-picking differences. The way the film was shot contrasting Arwen with the Nazgul was brilliant. If you can not get over your ultra-conservative stance on this, at least recognize it for what it is: inabilty to let LOTR grow within the film in an organic way, or to accept that anyone else besides JRRT might have a good idea in the universe that JRRT invented.

[Eonwe]

I am going to perhaps lose some people's respect for this but...

I would like to say that I think the Arwen thing I did not like at first, but I am ok with it. I think that it did not change the overall story. Its not what I would have done, and I don't think it was necessary for PJ to make this change.

In fact (oh my God I can't believe I am going to say this), I think PJ should have exchanged her for Legolas in the Fellowship. I mean, how would that have changed the overall plot? Its not what I would pick but...

I hope you all respect me in the morning...:)

[Grond]

Originally posted by Harad
There's not much you can say. Arwen was an artistic invention of Peter Jackson, known as a composite character by those who are familiar with Film as a medium. The film Arwen was completely consistent with a character that might have come directly from LOTR with minor, if any, nit-picking differences. The way the film was shot contrasting Arwen with the Nazgul was brilliant. If you can not get over your ultra-conservative stance on this, at least recognize it for what it is: inabilty to let LOTR grow within the film in an organic way, or to accept that anyone else besides JRRT might have a good idea in the universe that JRRT invented. Harad, I would agree totally with you if Arwen had not ridden with Frodo to the Fords. That is where your wonderful analogy and explanation comes apart. PJ has made her a composite character of Arwen, Glorfindel and ........Frodo. She took Glorfindel's role (I've already said I had no problem with this) and Frodo's role in order to enhance Arwen's role. That just was not a characterization in the book unless you concede that a part of her compositeness (hehe) was Frodo's. If you concede that, then we are in agreement. I still would prefer it not have happened but I can live with it. (I still think Liv Tyler is hot!!)

[PRH]

I think PJ should have exchanged her for Legolas in the Fellowship. I mean, how would that have changed the overall plot?

hmm...don't you think that would've completely changed the dymanic between Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli? Having her around would've probably taken Aragorn away from the main quest too much. And if the friendship between Gimli and Legolas is developed in the FOTR DVD and TTT & ROTK, this would've all been ruined by her inclusion in the fellowship and Gimli would've been a loner.

[Eonwe]

well I can agree, the legolas/gimli thing would be gone but...

A) I don't know if PJ is going to develop this relationship; I would guess not
B) I don't know if PJ is going to do much concerning the elves/men/dwarves race to Fangorn.

If you take these out, there are some other scenes:

Paths of the Dead -- will this be shown?
Scene on Corsairs ship
Scene of Legolas and Gimli talking to Aragorn about Palantir
Scene of Legolas and Gimli talking to Merry and Pippin at Orthanc

I just think of the detail in FoTR regarding these and what was not shown in the movie, and I think prob. none of the details of Legolas and Gimli will be shown anyway...

Just thoughts, not religious fervor :)

[PRH]

Scene on Corsairs ship
Scene of Legolas and Gimli talking to Aragorn about Palantir
Scene of Legolas and Gimli talking to Merry and Pippin at Orthanc


I'm sure both of these scenes will be shown in real time rather than with explanations. This will be true for almost everything.

Paths of the Dead -- will this be shown?

small spoiler!:


I've heard Viggo describe his character as being able to summon the dead so I'm sure Paths of the Dead will be in. As with everything else, it will almost surely be shown real-time and not explained.


Almost NOTHING will be 'explained' -- it will almost ALL be shown. This is just how movies differ from books AND PJ has already set a pattern of this in FOTR.

[Eonwe]

so how would these scenes change with Arwen in them instead of Legolas?

**ducks expecting old copies of LoTR to be thrown**

[PRH]

I just think the inter-character dynamics would change too much. There would be too much emphasis on Aragorn and Arwen as a couple. (If they tried to avoid that then their relationship wouldn't make a ton of sense.) There would be too much "Arwen and Aragorn" rather then "Aragorn as the leader."

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Harad
There's not much you can say. Arwen was an artistic invention of Peter Jackson, known as a composite character by those who are familiar with Film as a medium. The film Arwen was completely consistent with a character that might have come directly from LOTR with minor, if any, nit-picking differences.

I am not saying that the "film Arwen was completely consistent with a character that might have come directly from LoTR". Nothing Arwen's character did was out of LoTR spirit. The issue is whether it should have been ARWEN doing it! Arwen was not a composite character because she already had a character...Lurtz was a composite character because he never existed but was created to personify Saruman's orcs more realistically to the audience....And to be honest, Lurtz didn't bother me as much as I thought he would....To me, characters' lines combined or spoken by another character are not a big deal (i.e. Sam says something that was attributed to Frodo, or something like that). Arwen was far from a composite character. She was an existing character who was portrayed nothing like she should have been in the book. Would you have felt the same if Aragorn or Gandalf were "composed" of other characters' actions that were totally out of character for them?

Arwen was created a certain way by JRR Tolkien. He made her role specifically as Aragorn's betrothed....an almost ethereal force that drives Aragorn to his destiny: to earn the hand of the daughter of Elrond. Does that mean that she should only sit high and pretty and be given the few minutes that Tolkien did? NO! Obviously if PJ wanted the audience to get used to her he could have created more scenes to include her in....but scenes true to ARWEN's character, not Glorfindel, Elrond, Gandalf and Frodo's combined.

"minor, nit-picking differences"?? Please, Harad!! Maybe for the spirit of LoTR and only if they were done by a true composite fictional character. As for it being ARWEN the differences are mighty huge. I will agree on exactly what it was: an invention of Peter Jackson. Definitely not Tolkien.

[Harad]

Arwen was far from a composite character. She was an existing character who was portrayed nothing like she should have been in the book.

Thorin:
First let me commend you for actually engaging in a discussion rather than ignoring what I said and/or casting asperagus at me.

We disagree entirely on what "composite" character means. In the book Arwen is a completely behind the scenes character--does she have ANY lines? Therefore in my mind she is a tabula rasa. PJ takes her from behind the scenes and retains the important facts about her: she is Elrond's daughter and Aragorn's betrothed. He then adds to this many of the actions that the book's Glorfindel took: searched for Aragorn and the Hobbits, aided Frodo's escape from the Nazgul, and played a large role in unhorsing the Nazgul.

Can there be any doubt among others that this is a composite character? One may not like what PJ did in the composition but to deny that she is a composite character is too much.

[Grond]

Harad, I absolutely agree that PJ's Arwen is a composite character. My problem, as stated about six posts up and to which no one responded, was that a part of her composition not only included Glorfindel's role but also a significant insight into Frodo's personality. Had PJ simply substituted Arwen for Glorfindel, I would have had no problem with her. It also occurs to me that PJ also included some of Elrond's character in her as well. I had forgotten that it was she who called down the River. Maybe PJ could have saved us all a lot of trouble and just named it Queen of the Rings and had Arwen take all the characters. :D

Seriously, I would have been much happier had he not done that. Arwen = Glorfindel is acceptable. Arwen = Glorfindel + Elrond + Frodo is just a little more than the Grond would have preferred. I still have high hopes for the Director Cut DVD and the next two movies. I can tolerate an expanded Arwen role as long as it doesn't infringe on the dynamics of the Aragorn - Eowyn sub plot. If he starts changing big chunks of plot, I will be unhappy. :(

[Thorin]

I must disagree with you both then, Grond....Grond, say it ain't so!:( Arwen's travesty has made me even detest Liv Tyler (not that I liked her to begin with).

As far as I'm concerned, Grond, Arwen's distortion is a big chunk of the plot...By introducing Arwen the way she is, PJ has been left to continue to give her such roles...As I've said before, doing what PJ did and then leaving her on the sidelines defeats the purpose of what PJ intended: to give her more time then JRR did and keep her fresh in the mind of the audience...Unfortunately, the WAY she was introduced leaves the door open to give her more of the same role (As we see, she is now at Helm's Deep). How much farther is it going to go? She is already not Tolkien's Arwen.

It would not suprise me if she is involved in the going ons of Gondor and the battle of Pelennor fields...Do you think that after coming down and fighting in Helm's Deep that she is just going to say, "Well, dearest, I'm going back to Rivendell to sit pretty. See you at our wedding day."?? I highly doubt it...She's down there and as far as the movie time goes, I can't see much time passing between one incident and the other, so my guess is that she is in almost everything like white on rice. Why that thought seems to bother only me is incredible for a forum of TOLKIEN fans.

To me, that is changing a lot of the plot and character....Down with PJ and his cheesy, fabricated Arwen! :mad:

[PRH]

It would not suprise me if she is involved in the going ons of Gondor and the battle of Pelennor fields


small spoilers!:


Thorin,

Good news refuting this: There is rumor that Arwen will stay in Rohan to help the refugees while the others go on to Minas Tirith:

http://www.tolkienonline.com/movies/changes_ttt.cfm

[Thorin]

It's been a while since I looked at the changes. It seems that PJ will not be putting the filmed scenes of Xen-Arwen fighting at Helm's Deep in the movies.

That sure would be nice, but I don't know how true it all is....

[Eonwe]

Thorin! You don't like Liv Tyler? I'd like to suggest Viagra...

Ok that was below the belt. And a "waste of bandwidth". Sorry. HAHA! :)

[Grond]

Thorin, my opinion on Arwen's expanded role are posted throughout the forum. You know them and I know them. I will not make any judgement on a movie that is not yet through editing. When it comes out and I view it, at that time I will make a judgement on the degree of damage (if any) done to the character and the work. Those are my judgements and are not the property of anyone else on this forum. :)

[Eol]

She is just another example of how PJ put in things that are inconsistent or just plain don't make sense.

First, I read someone say in another thread that her going off to find her hunky-poo was in keeping with her brave and fearless ancestor Luthien. That is ridiculous. Tell me where Luthien picked up a sword and starts hacking up orcs! Luthien was a elvish princess. She used her wits and magic for her ends. Why would Arwen be different? (Next thing you know, Galadriel her granny will be impaling trolls on spears!)

The "Glorfindel isn't important cause he didn't get in the fellowship" is also silly. The sons of Elrond didn't either and they are powerful elves. There are other powerful beings that didn't either. And they make the point in the book many times that there are other perils and other armies to fight. And "even if you send an Elf-Lord like Glorfindel, he cannot storm the dark tower or break the black gate by the power that is in him" (or something like that, going by memory).

And the main reason it is silly is because of all the people to send, why her? Think this through. Elrond will definately send SOMEONE. Or more likely, more than one. So the point comes to this. Do they know where to find Aragorn and company or not.

In the book they are wandering through the Ettenmoors. Elrond sends out MANY scouts to find them. The one who actually does is Glorfindel. Could have been someone else. Doesn't matter really, does it? But for the movie to work, she has to know where to find him, otherwise it becomes a silly coincidence that out of all the searchers it is HER that finds him. I guess you can add super-tracker to the warrior tag on her.

So either they knew where to find Aragorn and she went (but why alone when the 9 are after him) or they don't (in which case it becomes improbable it would be her).

Oh, want another quick, stupid inconsistency? After telling you that orcs aren't out during the day and have excellent night vision, and BEFORE we meet Sarumans new 24hr orcs: Aragorn stops them for that fateful rest stop "because the should cross they river at night to avoid being seen". Duh!

Eol - the Dark Elf

[PRH]

BEFORE we meet Sarumans new 24hr orcs

Gandalf was well aware of the Uruk-Hai. He informed Elrond in Rivendell of how they would travel during the day. I'm sure he mentioned it to Aragorn at some point along the way.

[Harad]

The "Glorfindel isn't important cause he didn't get in the fellowship" is also silly.

Glorfindel isnt important because he is a weak literary character. This is recognized by anybody that examines LOTR without an ultraconservative approach that "If JRRT wrote it, its perfection." LOTR is a great literary work but not perfect. Glorfindel is a 1st Age Elf in a 3rd Age story. After he has a cameo appearance at the Ford of Bruinen, he DISAPPEARS. Never heard from again in LOTR. Not like Elrond's sons who contribute to the Host of West (thanks, Vilya). JRRT wisely did not include Glorfindel in the rest of the story, not for any logical reason, but simply because Glorfindel did not fit. This was a job appropriate for Legolas. Glorfindel was inappropriate.

Tell me where Luthien picked up a sword and starts hacking up orcs! Luthien was a elvish princess.

And which movie was Arwen hacking orcs? Arwen is absolutely consistent with a JRRT character reminiscent of Luthien, more than, say Eowyn, another JRRT character. She is only a "warrior maiden" for those who do not pay attention to the movie. In the movie she is a healer and a glowing light in contrast to the darkness of the Nazgul. At the Ford of Bruinen she uses trickery to unhorse the Nazgul, in contrast with Glorfindel who uses power to drive the Nazgul into the river.
(in which case it becomes improbable it would be her).
Arwen finds Aragorn? Unbelievable. Perhaps in the magical world of LOTR, there is a bond between the two betrothed that draws them together....Naaaah. Magical Rings? Yes! A bond between Aragorn and Arwen? Ridiculous!

[Eol]

So he is weak because he is never heard from again? That's it? You know how many works have characters like that? He was a support character, that is all. He played a brief part. By your reasoning Ghan Buri Ghan was unnecessary, Hama is unnecessary, indeed half the council is unnecessary. Call it personal preference if you like, but I do not share your opinion.

True, she didn't hack up orcs (yet, but from what I hear she may just do that). But at the same time, no other similar JRR character is behaving like she is. I would like to hear who you think she is in line with. Certainly not Luthien. As for the "psychic bond" you speak of, Luthien needed Huan the hound to help her track Beren.

Further, I don't find her as a light contrast. Sorry, she just didn't seem like that. And in fact she almost in a sense belittled what the others went through (she seems to have dealt with the situation better than Aragorn). Also I wouldn't rank trickery up there as a great virtue. And by the way, Glorfindel did not combat it with power. He merely did the same that Aragorn himself did at Weathertop. He used fire against the riders, in this case to drive them to the river. And it was he, Aragorn and the hobbits that did that, not him alone. But hey, had Arwen been there they could have all relaxed and left it to her.

And as for the escape, the horse of Glorfindel provided the speed, and Frodo provided the defiance. But of course this Frodo seems to be a little weak in that department.

So no, I don't see a great improvement in PJ's treatment, and in fact think he blew it.

Eol - The Dark Elf

[Harad]

Eol:
Sorry you dont understand my point about Glorfindel. He is without question the best character to represent the Elves in the Fellowship. Yet, he is ignored. He is a High Elf who alone of all Elves came back from the Hall of Mandos to Middle Earth. He killed Gothmog the Balrog. For 2 Ages of ME he chased the Nazgul, from the Wars of the North to the Fords of Bruinen. Yet, when the War of the Ring breaks out he takes a vacation. Never heard from again until a one word mention in the Aragorn wedding procession. This is a character that is buried by JRRT. A character that SHOULD play a role, but doesnt.

What possible connection is there between Glorfindel and Ghan Buri Ghan, or for that matter, other MINOR characters? Glorfindel is not minor, he is weak, on simple logical grounds.

Also I wouldn't rank trickery up there as a great virtue

Call it what you want. Its what every character uses to win, that doesnt use brute force. This comment shows how bankrupt your argument is. Tell me what character this describes:

..she put forth her arts of enchantment, and caused her hair to grow to great length, and of it wove a dark robe that wrapped her beauty like a shadow, and it was laden with a spell of sleep. Of the strands that remained she twined a rope, and she let it down from her window; and as the end swayed above her guards that sat beneath the tree they fell into a deep slumber.

Trickery? Deception? Magic? Who could this unnamed character be? Any ideas? You deny that Arwen has literary antecedents in JRRT. Then you denigrate the very acts that point to that antecedent. Its plain irrational bashing of the movie, wrapped of course in specious arguments.

Why so often do nit-pickers not know the book that they nit-pick about?

[Eol]

First, I happen to know the book very well. And yes, Luthien was a fine seamstress. But there are differences in execution. There are subtleties. In one side you quote from the tale of Beren and Luthien and talk of enchantment and magic. On the other it is someone luring the enemy into a trap. Maybe you don't see the difference, but I sure do.

I brought up the others because they seemed to only appear in a certain spot and then are never heard from. That seems to be your point. Also, remember when the fellowship was being made, the last two spots were to be from Elronds people. Maybe Glorfindel might have gone. But Elrond allowed Merry and Pippen to go, trusting in friendship instead of power or great knowledge. Sorry, I still don't buy your arguments.

YOU say he SHOULD play a role. I don't agree. Hey, Galadriel could have joined them from Lorien. She was very powerful. But she stayed behind. Just because someone is powerful doesn't mean they have to be in the fellowship.

Oh, and try to stick to the point at hand and not get into this "you don't know the book" garbage. If it's flames you want maybe this should move elsewhere!

Eol - The Dark Elf

[Harad]

On the other it is someone luring the enemy into a trap. Maybe you don't see the difference, but I sure do.

No I dont see the difference. Trickery is deception is magic. Does Luthien "trick" Sauron? "Deceive" Morgoth? Is that something you deride? Or did Luthien use brute force? Which was it? Demonstrate that you know the book.

Maybe Glorfindel might have gone. But Elrond allowed Merry and Pippen to go, trusting in friendship instead of power or great knowledge.

Merry and Pippen are not the issue. Whose "friendship" did Legolas command? Legolas was the Elf representative on the Fellowship. Galadriel was the ruler of Lorien and not even at the CoE. I can't wait for the next non-sequitor.

How many entities of Glorfindels description were there in ME? What did Glorfindel do in the War of the Ring? We know what Galadriel, Elladan, Elrohir, Dain, Brand, Ghan Buri Ghan did. What did Glorfindel do?

Bash the movie all you want, but dont claim you are defending principles in the book that, in fact, dont exist.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Harad
Arwen is absolutely consistent with a JRRT character reminiscent of Luthien...... In the movie she is a healer and a glowing light in contrast to the darkness of the Nazgul. At the Ford of Bruinen she uses trickery to unhorse the Nazgul, in contrast with Glorfindel who uses power to drive the Nazgul into the river.

Arwen finds Aragorn? Unbelievable. Perhaps in the magical world of LOTR, there is a bond between the two betrothed that draws them together....Naaaah. Magical Rings? Yes! A bond between Aragorn and Arwen? Ridiculous!


What is unbelievable Harad, is that you somehow can find so many ways to explain and justify a complete fabrication and yet still somehow try to make it Tolkien.... All you have is speculation to base your pro-PJ justifications on....Trying to create some sort of psychic bond between Aragorn and Arwen to explain why she somehow found Aragorn and the hobbits is beyond reason and so far from Tolkien's LoTR that it is astounding.

PJ's Arwen and Tolkien's Arwen are two different characters...call it for what it is and stop trying to make so many ridiculous justifications for it.....It was a movie invention, it is not Tolkien's character, nor his intention for a character...It was a HUGE misinterpretation by PJ for cinematic purposes. CALL IT FOR WHAT IT IS and stop trying to link it to JRR by saying that it is in "the spirit of Tolkien" and "Luthien did it, why couldn't Arwen?" These arguments are totally irrelevant to the facts, never mind tedious and an insult to JRR characters and story.

[Harad]

A "fabrication" in a film based on a fictional story. What an insult?

And BTW what a "fantastic" NEW argument against Arwen: she could never have found Aragorn. Think of the consequences of this argument.

1. For the book, we now know that Glordindel was a tracker and wilderness Elf par excellence, since he found Aragorn. This is just the OPPOSITE of the arguments these same people make for why Glorfindel was unsuited for inclusion in the Fellowship.

2. Arwen, daughter of Elrond, is so inferior, perhaps being a woman, that she could not find Aragorn in the wilderness, or certainly with lower probability than Elronds sons or the wilderness-savvy Glorfindel. She cant fight, she cant use deception, and she cant find her way in the wilderness.

These "defenders" of JRRT want the character of Arwen to be an incompetent boob, only able to sit quietly at home, and after being summmoned, meekly be wed to Aragorn. Exactly who is doing injustice to a JRRT character? It isnt PJ.

[Eol]

You know, your arguments keep getting weirder and weirder. And you seem to enjoy misinterpreting or skewing what is said to defend your view. You know, Thorin is right.

"For the book, we now know that Glordindel was a tracker and wilderness Elf par excellence, since he found Aragorn..." Who said this? My point, if you read it, and read the book like you keep claiming I haven't, is that Elrond sent many people out looking for Aragorn and company. Glorfindel was the one who happened to find him first. It could just as easily been someone else. No, he wasn't being Mr. Supertracker. To track someone you have to find where they have been first and follow. Hard to do on that horse of his. So out of all the people that were searching, Glorfindel happened to be in the right place at the right time.

I am not doing injustice to Arwen. But the movie Arwen and the book version are as Thorin said, totally different. And I don't see the justification for the change beyond marketing and the box office appeal of Liv Tyler.

Oh, and I don't recall saying Galadriel was at the council. I said she could have tagged along after they left Lorien. Of course, you would know this if you actually read my post. Come to think of it, that darned Celeborn doesn't seem to do much of anything, they should write him out completely while they are at it.

Legolas did indeed go to represent the elves. But you know there are more elves than in the House of Elrond. He was a sindarian elf, who were of course the majority of elves in the 3rd age. And while to hear you speak he might just be any old elf, he was King Thranduil's son. So having him represent the elves is not a ridiculous decision. So to justify Glorfindel's existence in the book Elrond should have told Legolas to go home and put Glorfindel in instead???

And finally, "Demonstrate that you know the book"??? Sorry, I don't feel the need to demonstrate anything to you. You obviously have an overinflated sense of your importance.

Eol - The Dark Elf

[Harad]

So Glorfindel the Unique Elf who:

1. The only ELf EVER to come back East to ME from the Hall of Mandos
2. To kill a Balrog
3. To chase the Nazgul in the 2nd and 3rd ages

"happens" to find Aragorn, but it is absurd for Arwen to "happen" to find Aragorn in the movie.

Arwen is a COMPOSITE character, a standard technique when books are adapted into films. Its a shame that you do not understand this. Its a pity that you dont like this. But so be it.

When chosing the Fellowship Galadriel was not an option, so comparing her to Glorfindel is ridiculous. Comparing him to Legolas is not ridiculous since they were both options.

If Glorfindel had done ANYTHING else, after being introduced then you might have an argument, but he didnt. He was buried by his author. Thank you for the latest non-sequitor: Celeborn. I knew it would be a good one. Celeborn also was not an option for the Fellowship.


Sorry, I don't feel the need to demonstrate anything

That's obvious.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Harad
Arwen, daughter of Elrond, is so inferior, perhaps being a woman, that she could not find Aragorn in the wilderness, or certainly with lower probability than Elronds sons or the wilderness-savvy Glorfindel. She cant fight, she cant use deception, and she cant find her way in the wilderness.

These "defenders" of JRRT want the character of Arwen to be an incompetent boob, only able to sit quietly at home, and after being summmoned, meekly be wed to Aragorn. Exactly who is doing injustice to a JRRT character? It isnt PJ.

Well Harad, for the eleventy-first time, the fact is, is that ARWEN DIDN'T DO THESE THINGS!!! I wonder who can separate the book from the movie, to you they seem to morph together. Your arguments are rediculous because you are arguing for what never occured. You're arguing why the sky could be green and should have been green because God should have made it green just to give it more color...The fact is, is that the sky is blue and any arguments to the contrary are speculation and useless....JRR wrote all his characters a certain way, why should you as a Tolkien fan have such a problem with that? Your logic could be applied to many characters and could be taken to ludicrous lengths to pooh-pooh away any character....What defenders of JRR want is even a half-way decent portrayal of his characters in a movie that seems to proclaim itself as gospel rendition. Arwen is not one of those characters.

[Grond]

Gosh, this argument is so good I hate to get in the middle of it but......... first I must correct a mistake. Eol said,And by the way, Glorfindel did not combat it with power. He merely did the same that Aragorn himself did at Weathertop. He used fire against the riders, in this case to drive them to the river. This is incorrect.
From FotR, Many Meetings, 'I thought that I saw a white figure that shone and did not grow dim like the others. Was that Glorfindel then?'
And Gandalf responds, 'Yes, you saw him for a moment as he is upon he other side: one of the mighty of the Firstborn. He is an Elf-lord of a house of princes...'

So Glorfindel didn't need no stinkin' fire to fight no stinkin' Nazgul. I still missed having him in the movie. :)

Harad, Eol versus Harad = Grond versus Harad in another thread at another time. Deja vu???? :D

A couple of final points. Eol, just stick to the argument that the character Arwen wasn't in the Fords in the book. That is totally defensible, characterizations are for the reader to interpret and you can never say that the movie Arwen is "out of character for Tolkien" because that is in the eye of the reader. One may feel that Arwen in the movie is similar to Luthien in the book. Doesn't mean it's right in your eyes, but it definately suits Harad's eyes aka opinion. Lastly, no flame wars or nastiness allowed. Keep it clean and civil. :)

P. S. Thorin, Harad continues to argue characterizations. You cannot win this argument with him because it is a personal opinion matter. The suggested attack plan is to stick with the "It ain't in the book defense." No go out there and "Hunt some Orc!"

[Harad]

ARWEN DIDN'T DO THESE THINGS!!!

in the book.

And?

Your point is?

That the film isnt a shot for shot rendering of the book?

I'll alert the media.

Any film that employs the technique of a composite character will have this "failing."

The book also doesnt start with Galadriel saying "The World Has Changed..."

GALADRIEL DOESNT DO THIS THING!

So?

You dont like this, you dont like Arwen, you dont like the film. That is your right. And its abundantly clear.

When you mistakenly conclude that the film is not a faithful ADAPTATION of JRRT thats where you stray into Unsupportedville.

[DGoeij]

Adaptation? Yes.
One heck of a try? Yes.
I think anyone will come any closer for the coming decennia? I wish, but I'm not expecting it.
A faithfull adaptation? Not IMHO.

[Harad]

So PJ missed the point of LOTR? How?

Which story did you think he was telling?

[DGoeij]

PJ missed the point of LOTR? Who said that? The film I saw was dealing with a Ring that had to be destroyed, so IMHO, the point of LOTR wasn't exactly missed.
A lot of the stories inside the main story didn't come back as strong as I wished in the movie or never at all. Which was a choice/decision that had to be made if one makes a movie I guess, so IMHO it wasn't that faithfull either.
An OPINION, see, mine if I need to add.

[Harad]

An "unfaithful" adaptation implies that it missed the point. If it didnt include everything that you wanted to see, that does not make it unfaithful, except in the strictest personal sense. If thats what you mean...

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Harad


in the book.

And?

Your point is?

That the film isnt a shot for shot rendering of the book?

I'll alert the media.

Any film that employs the technique of a composite character will have this "failing."

The book also doesnt start with Galadriel saying "The World Has Changed..."

GALADRIEL DOESNT DO THIS THING!

So?

You dont like this, you dont like Arwen, you dont like the film. That is your right. And its abundantly clear.

When you mistakenly conclude that the film is not a faithful ADAPTATION of JRRT thats where you stray into Unsupportedville.


1) My point is, is that you make no sense trying to justify Arwen's distortion by trying to make it fit JRR Tolkien's LoTR instead of just admitting that it is a total fabrication but you liked it anyway.

2) I have not problem with making things up for characters. If PJ would have created more scenes with Arwen that were true to her character (which is what he has claimed to do through the whole movie) I would have had no problem. Galadriel saying "The world has changed.." Not out of character, not an earth shaking addition. You can't compare the that to Arwen, nor am I harping like: "Galadriel SHOULD have said that! What a line! Why didn't Tolkien make her say that? After all, being an elven queen and on of the most powerful, she should say such a thing. PJ's line is in the spirit of Tolkien, so...blah, blah blah."

I never said that the film was not a decent adaptation. Arwen's character is NOT a decent interpretation..Whether PJ succeeded in other areas is not the issue...He failed with Arwen...

[Harad]

1) My point is, is that you make no sense trying to justify Arwen's distortion by trying to make it fit JRR

It makes sense, it works cinematically, its a fabrication (I like invention better--fabrication sounds like "a lie" but it has the other meaning), and I like it.

All you say is "it isnt in the Book." Who is arguing this?

What I say is: it IS in the spirit of the book, it could have been in one of the many JRRT rewrites, since it is consistent with his characters.

At first you and your gaggle of critics said that she was a Warrior Maiden inconsistent with what a female Elf would be like in JRRT. Now that we have proven:

1. "warrior maiden" is NOT the thrust of her character is the movie: rather healer, enchantress, and helpmate

2. her character is consistent with that of Luthien

now...your only weak fallback: She's not in the book (I can almost hear the whine.)

This is the movie: its different from the book.

BTW remember that in the book Arwen's mother was fatally injured in an Orc ambush? Since Arwen is never given any ACTION role by JRRT, can't you imagine that she in fact did things like travel? And that she would travel armed in ME, if nothing else to try to avoid her mother's fate? Can you use your imagination? Can PJ use his?

[DGoeij]

Unfaithfull in the stricest personal sense? Yes.
My opinion? Yes.
A word I specifically added too.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Harad
What I say is: it IS in the spirit of the book, it could have been in one of the many JRRT rewrites, since it is consistent with his characters.

now...your only weak fallback: She's not in the book (I can almost hear the whine.)

This is the movie: its different from the book.

BTW remember that in the book Arwen's mother was fatally injured in an Orc ambush? Since Arwen is never given any ACTION role by JRRT, can't you imagine that she in fact did things like travel? And that she would travel armed in ME, if nothing else to try to avoid her mother's fate? Can you use your imagination? Can PJ use his?

Yes, it is different then the book...So stop trying to use the "spirit" of the book to justify what's made up. Gandalf could have flown or fought Sauron or cast more spells then he did (it was in the spirit of LoTR), or Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas could have caught up with the orc band and had one heck of a fight (it was in the spirit of LoTR that they could have done that), or Sam could have overtaken Gollum and killed him (it was in his spirit to do that, or Elrond, Galadriel and Glorfindel could have joined the army and combined their power with Gandalf's to fight Saruman and Sauron (it was would definitely be in the spirit of LoTR) Hey! The facts are, that regardeless of what is in the "spirit" of Tolkien, they never occured!!! Wouldja imagine that??

Yes, I can use my imagination...However whatever my mind "fabricates" or "falsely interprets" definitely does not change the reality of what my imagination is based on....Once again, you miss the point. Whether or not Arwen COULD have is not an issue...She did not and no matter how much I want to imagine something otherwise or what could have been, doesn't make it valid in anyway.

FACT: Justifying something fabricated by referring to Tolkien himself when it never occured, by saying it COULD have happened is a futile and redundant argument with no factual support...(How can you have support for something that never occured?)
FACT: Arwen was distorted in the movie with no regard to Tolkien's Arwen, but was made and combined with other characters to introduce her to the audience and create more of a foundation for an Aragorn/Arwen romance that you only get from the appendix in LoTR

FACT: PJ introduced her in a way to made her more exciting and cinematically appealing to a Tolkien ignorant audience regardeless of what Tolkien or his fans would have intended.

FACT: Despite what you and others have said, I believe that Tolkien made it quite plain how he felt about such alterations of his characters.

FACT: PJ's Arwen is nothing more then director's interpretation. It is not based on Tolkien's character whatsoever and should not be justified on how Tolkien could or should have cast her.

[Snaga]

Reviewing all the Arwen debates, there are 21 seperate positions that have been put forward against this adaptation. I now present a general summary of all 21 arguments used against PJ’s treatment of Arwen, with a commentary. I do this in part because we are continually repeating ourselves: but there are some debates that are more erudite than others. But also because the sheer length of this list of complaints is instructive. One by one they have (mostly) been shot down, and it is therefore interesting to see the NPWs coming back to the fundamentalist position.

Those of you opposing PJ's interpretation: I'd be interested to know which of these you are still sticking to!:)

Here's that summary:

A. Arwen didn’t do these things in the book, and any change is blasphemy/a fabrication.

This is the most generalised argument. On the one hand it is completely self-sustaining, but on the other hand it would be impossible to make a film on this basis. You cannot shoot every page of every chapter: this is totally unrealistic. ‘It never happened’ is stranger still: none of it happened – it’s all fiction. This is a fundamentalist argument, out of touch with cinematic reality. Boiled down, it says the film should never have been made. Most will adopt a softer stance:

B. This is too great a change.

This though is a statement of opinion, and needs to rest on (probably a number of) supporting claims. I will first state and discard a few of these, that don’t appear helpful to the discussion.

C. Changes that are expected in subsequent movies are unacceptable.

I discard this, because until the movie is released, this is supposition and hearsay.

D. PJ’s claims to faithfulness to the book are dishonest.

This is really a statement about something external to the film, and does not pertain specifically to the question. True or false, its irrelevant.

E. The changes are purely designed to appeal to male viewers, and thereby improve saleability. (A variant is the ‘appeasing feminists’ argument.)

Again, this is something external to the film. It is about the cause and not the effect. If for ‘bad’ motives the film was just as we all wanted, this would not be raised.

The more substantial reasons generally fall into three areas: character portrayal of Arwen, internal consistency of the film, and the impact of Arwen’s portrayal on other characters. There a few that don’t fit as well. Turning to the character portrayal first.

F. Arwen should be more passive. She should not play an active role of any kind.

This is disputed with the counter-claim that Luthien is a precedent for an active female elf. Arwen in the film is a composite character, taking in the roles of other characters (most notably Glorfindel), and this is a standard adaptation device. The point of debate then moves to:

G. It is not legitimate to composite Arwen with other characters.

However, it is a relatively minor change in the context of the story. Glorfindel appears in one chapter, Arwen has a very minor appearance in FotR, and little more in RotK. Even the account of Aragorn and Arwen in the appendix gives little depth of characterisation. One is left with no indication of Arwen’s personality, and what she does with her time. In this context, refusing to countenance composition is just a restatement of A. This is typically followed with:

H. This change is not in accord with Tolkien’s intent.

I merely note that this statement is not supported, beyond a general view that Tolkien would accept no changes to any of his characters. However, in selling the film rights unconditionally, he inevitably accepted the possibility. This theme is generally under-explored, and evidence from Tolkien’s letters would be welcome. The second argument in relation to Arwen’s characterisation runs:

I. Arwen is not like Luthien, or any elf-woman, in that she uses a sword. This makes her like Xena.

The usual point made here is that Arwen does no more than raise the sword, but it should be conceded that carrying the weapon implies a willingness to use it. This reflects the composition of Arwen with Glorfindel: this is a Glorfindel element. It is not dominant: the (limited) healing of Frodo, and power over the river, and her general bravery in out-riding the nine stand out more. The argument then becomes a more general point: is it unacceptable to allow elf-woman to fight; and we have to note the female archers in Lothlorien in the film. It seems to me that this reflective of the relative modernity of the film, and the changed perception of women’s role. Is an unwillingness to bear arms an immutable characteristic of female elves?

J. Arwen (as a parallel of Luthien) would not lure the Nazgul into a trap.

Luthien did not lure any of Morgoth’s servants into a trap, but devised other means to fulfil her quest. Can we be sure she would not? Glorfindel and Elrond between them set a trap in the book, and Glorfindel drove the nine into it. At worst, this is part of the Glorfindel composite.

K. Arwen’s conduct is generally undignified.

It is probably true that anyone opposing the enemy will have less dignity than someone who sits at home at Rivendell. Maybe pointing her sword at Aragorn went a little far, but it immediately established the intimacy of their relationship, with humour. Humour among elves is a feature of the books: this conveyed the lighter side of the character of elves. We now turn to the effects on other characters.

L. Arwen would not have risked herself for Frodo.

Perhaps the weakest argument. The fate of the ring-bearer, and therefore of Middle-Earth was at stake, and any of Elrond’s House would have risked danger to help. That Luthien only risked herself for Beren, does not mean Arwen has to be an exact copy.

M. It is a shame to lose Glorfindel.

Some people have a soft spot for Glorfindel, and would have liked to see him. As a statement of personal preference this is acceptable, but as has been argued Glorfindel makes a fleeting appearance overall, and is merely a generic elf. He is ripe for compositing.

N. Aragorn is made to look weaker, less able as a result of her role.

This argument is in two parts: that Arwen can sneak up on him in the wild; and that she ‘takes over’ looking after Aragorn. The first part perhaps has some truth, the second does not. They debate what to do as equals, and she takes Frodo because she can ride the fastest. Aragorn’s role in the film is hige, and his heroic credentials have already been firmly established at Weathertop. It should also be noted that in the book Glorfindel leads them to Rivendell, not Aragorn.

O. Frodo is weakened because he does not confront the 9.

I think this is a very valid point. Frodo is generally portrayed as weaker throughout the film, and this scene doesn’t help. The counter-argument has typically been that there are opportunities for him to look stronger elsewhere, and he shows resilience in abundance. Next we move onto the Internal Consistency arguments.

P. Arwen finding Aragorn was too great a coincidence. There were many others sent to look.

Glorfindel meets them in the book because he is sent along the road, while others look north and south. If Arwen is sent west, she is in the right area. In the film Sam and Aragorn are desperately looking for athelas by torchlight at great speed. They are not concealing themselves – it is no great leap that Arwen can spot them if she is near.

Q. Elrond would have prevented Arwen from going at all; he would not have risked her life.

From the book that sounds likely, although I note that the others involved in the search are not named. Who can say for certain that Arwen wasn’t sent? But assuming she wasn’t, Arwen in the film contains Glorfindel elements. THIS Arwen is clearly very suitable for the task. Finally we move onto minor arguments, that don’t really need a response. Right or wrong, most of these are details, and not central points.

R. The incantations at the Ford are wrong. (Who knows whether Elrond used incantations to summon the flood in the book?)

S. Poor dialogue: ‘If you want him, come and claim him’ (Aragorn’s famous ‘Lets hunt some orc’ doesn’t destroy his character)

T. Liv Tyler – someone didn’t like her. A minority position, I feel sure! And finally this:

U. Having made this adaptation, PJ under–utilised it. Arwen should have had a greater role. Wow - brave!:)

** VoK collapses from exhaustion, as smoke slowly rises from his fingertips **

[Harad]

"It didnt happen in the book."

A litany of frustration. Nor did Merry & Pippin steal fireworks and on and on...

When a film is adapted from a book, the advantages of the other medium come into play. The disadvantages as well.

Composite characters appear. Those characters NEVER exisit in the book. Therefore whenever that occurs you tiresome litany is redundant. The character, as such, didnt occur in the book: it follows that what the character did, didnt happen in the book.

The movie is different from the book. Does it have the same theme as the book, the same plotlines, the same characters. If it does then, its a faithful adaptation of the book. You can argue endlessly (you do) on whether a particular departure harms the adaptation in your mind. Remember, however, its all in you mind. Its not an objective fact.

[Thorin]

True, you can take the "it didn't happen in the book" argument far...I agree. Gandalf bumping his head in didn't happen in the book, Merry and Pippen playing with fireworks and stealing vegetables like buffoons didn't happen either. As annoying and bothersome as they are, they are not totally out of character....Arwen's role, however, is taking something to the extreme and creating a different persona for a character that was never written to be that way...Plus in the creating of such a character, other characters ended up being morphed into her character, and thunder was stolen from other important characters....All this to boost a minor character into something different than what she was written as....I'm sorry, I can't see the justification for it...Maybe I can see a cinematic benefit for it, but from a Tolkien perspective?...Nope.

VofK, I don't recall anyone saying "any change is a blasphemy". I am probable the most diehard purist here and I've never said anything like that....Changes are inevitable and acceptable...within reason. Arwen's role change and the subsequent new role that she will be playing in the next two movies is unacceptable when measuring with the stick of JRR's LoTR.

[Snaga]

Sorry Thorin you did say it was blasphemy. Although your English goes slightly skew-whiff here so I may have you wrong! Originally posted by Thorin
What Harad still doesn't seem to accept or grasp is that Arwen is ARWEN! She should stay the Arwen that Tolkien intended. Whether Glorfindel was a "weak" character doesn't change the fact that Arwen (of all of Tolkien's characters) should not have been made to do the things that she did, in the place that she did, in the time that she did.

The only reason why that was done was for the audience to be introduced to Arwen early....The rest was typical "Hollywood" action purposes.

PJ could have created scenes to introduce Arwen to the people and still made her a viable character that stayed true to Tolkien.

It was blasphemed and until Harad can finally admit that (Whether that was a smart cinematic move or that he really liked it is beside the point)

Until Harad stops arguing like JRR meant her to do those things it is impossible to argue with him. [My emphasis - VoK]

Anyway I accept your less fundamentalist position - I think you should resist Grond's siren voice trying to lure you back onto the rocks of the 'blasphemy position'. On the other hand you now represent a moving target - you seem to get through anti-Arwen arguments like they're going out of fashion.

[Thorin]

Hmm..I think I made myself pretty clear in my response as well as your quote of me...I have no problems with my english, I'm sorry you seem to.

I did say that Arwen's distortion is blasphemous to Tolkien and I will state that until my dying day when you pry my cold, dead fingers off of my all inclusive LoTR paperback....

What I did not say (in my quote and other reply)and what you DID say is that one of the arguments was that ANY change from the book was blasphemy. I believe I made that clear in my other posts that nobody (at least not me) said any such thing. Here is what you said:

quote: "Arwen didn’t do these things in the book, and any change is blasphemy/a fabrication. This is the most generalised argument. On the one hand it is completely self-sustaining, but on the other hand it would be impossible to make a film on this basis. You cannot shoot every page of every chapter: this is totally unrealistic. ‘It never happened’ is stranger still: none of it happened – it’s all fiction. This is a fundamentalist argument, out of touch with cinematic reality. Boiled down, it says the film should never have been made.

I rest my case....

[Snaga]

Thorin

I wasn't trying to be offensive or anything.:) At worst perhaps I was having a little harmless fun at your expense. The sentence you posted was "It was blasphemed " which in my book is a typo or something.:confused:

Blasphemy is a term of some strength, considering we are talking about a work of fiction. Your language often sounds as though you believe Lord of the Rings is a historical or religious text. I get the emotion on one level as I too dearly love the JRRTs books, but if you are trying to make rational arguments based on it, I don't think it works.

I know you don't view any and every change as intolerable. My own lack of language skills are at fault here perhaps, in that my intention was to say "Arwen didn’t do these things in the book, and any change [to the portrayal of her character] is blasphemy/a fabrication." (i.e you may feel that other changes elsewhere are acceptable).

In any case in my original post, I did not wish to pin a view on you or anyone else if you do not hold it. Moreover, I think this little exchange may have been useful, as I guess my misunderstanding of your position stems from Grond urging you to issue a blanket condemnation of Arwen on the basis that its not in the book, period. You didn't take issue with him, hence my error.

Nevertheless, to my mind at least 20 other arguments have been posted, and very few of them have much merit. Every now and again someone else will pop up with a supposedly new revelation about how terrible Arwen is, and back round the houses we go. It would be good to explore some new points if we can. I'm sure we'll still disagree, but at least it will be less frustrating than endless repetion!

I'd like to chuck in this: She may not be the Arwen of the book, but how can you really tell? So little is written of her. In all that time in Lorien she could have been doing her stint of guard's duty with Haldir & co. Its not said, but she is only ever portrayed as dancing, falling in love, making a banner, feasting, and travelling. Your guess is as good as mine about what she did for the other 99.99% of her life.

If there are some notes anywhere in which Tolkien makes some specific comments on Noldorin society, and the role of their women-folk, that would at least strengthen your case.

C'mon sock it to me!!!:)

[Grond]

Originally posted by Harad


in the book.

And?

Your point is?

That the film isnt a shot for shot rendering of the book?

I'll alert the media.

Any film that employs the technique of a composite character will have this "failing."

The book also doesnt start with Galadriel saying "The World Has Changed..."

GALADRIEL DOESNT DO THIS THING!

So?

You dont like this, you dont like Arwen, you dont like the film. That is your right. And its abundantly clear.

When you mistakenly conclude that the film is not a faithful ADAPTATION of JRRT thats where you stray into Unsupportedville. Harad, you say it is a mistake to conclude that the movie is not a faithful adaptation when that very determination is one purely of opinion. You also either completely missed my earlier points or choose not to address them. I personally have no problem with things that could have happened in the book but were not elucidated by Tolkien. The could easily include Galadriel starting the movie with "The World has Changed..." Merry and Pippin blowing themselves in fireworks (not in book but okay). Tom Bombadil out (okay because of time constraints). Hobbits getting swords from Aragorn (okay). All these things were changed for a reason of making the movie more easily understood by the audience and for the sake of time. Arwen at the Fords is an entirely different matter. It effects the dynamics of the characters much more significantly (to me... not to you.)

My reason for urging others to argue the "ain't in the book defense" is because that takes it out of the characterization defense which you have shown is easily attacked. I guess I should have had them argue the "it ain't in the book and it hurts a characterization defense". I honestly feel (and I know you disagree) that Arwen's scene at the Ford did "harm" to Frodo's character. I wasn't upset that Glorfindel was left out. I wasn't even upset that Arwen took his place. I was upset that Arwen rescued Frodo at a time in the book where Frodo rescued himself by defying the Nazgul. And, yes, he would have lost at the Fords without the help of the party and of Elrond and Gandalf but he defied them himself... not Gandalf, not Elrond, not Arwen, not Aragorn, not even Glorfindel... Frodo defied them by himself.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Variag of Khand
I wasn't trying to be offensive or anything.:) At worst perhaps I was having a little harmless fun at your expense.

Blasphemy is a term of some strength, considering we are talking about a work of fiction. Your language often sounds as though you believe Lord of the Rings is a historical or religious text.

She may not be the Arwen of the book, but how can you really tell? So little is written of her. In all that time in Lorien she could have been doing her stint of guard's duty with Haldir & co. Its not said, but she is only ever portrayed as dancing, falling in love, making a banner, feasting, and travelling. Your guess is as good as mine about what she did for the other 99.99% of her life.

If there are some notes anywhere in which Tolkien makes some specific comments on Noldorin society, and the role of their women-folk, that would at least strengthen your case.C'mon sock it to me!!!:)

No offense taken :) I was not using the term "blasphemy" in a religious sense..Check the dictionary.

What Arwen has done in the rest of her life is pure speculation and is not part of the story (as is with everyone else not directly involved with the Fellowship...Regardless, it has nothing to do with placing Arwen at the Fords and replacing others (especially when she is not even supposed to be there) and twisting an actual passage of LoTR.

If PJ wanted to CREATE some scenes to bolster Arwen's role and give her more development, he could have done it and not offended any purists in the process....To have her doing what she did and then try and justify it by saying she COULD have done it is just plain useless speculation and it bothers me that for some reason I have to defend why it SHOULDN'T be in....Where the heck is the logic in that?

I don't think any reference from Tolkien is needed because I have nothing to prove. Why should I need to try and justify PJ's Arwen because it's possible she could have done what she did? Why the heck should I drag out every instance of Tolkien female roles to validate PJ's Arwen?? It's a mute point!

Hmmm...What she could have done against what she actually did? PJ's creation against JRR's reality? Who has more validation? Not only do I not need to prove anything, there is nothing to prove.

Okay, I will say this....Because Arwen was needed to be in the movie more, she could have replaced Glorfindel and found the Company...I could live with that...But throw him on the horse and let the rest take it's course...The riding, the defiant, sword-raising ,. "if you want him...blah,blah" spell casting, tears in her eyes, "Hang on Frodo" healing **** was just plain overkill and that is what I have the most problem with.

[Harad]

As you know I do not argue that point. The upshot is that PJ wanted to flesh out Arwen at the expense of that one scene of Frodos. Its true..its done...we live with it.

Frodo's character, however, survives in good stead. He remains the main character and soldiers on bravely, despite.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Harad
As you know I do not argue that point. The upshot is that PJ wanted to flesh out Arwen at the expense of that one scene of Frodos. Its true..its done...we live with it.

Frodo's character, however, survives in good stead. He remains the main character and soldiers on bravely, despite. I fully agree with you Harad. PJ wanted to flesh out Arwen at Frodo's expense. That one admission from you is telling though, because the change is significant enough to likely have merited JRRT's disapproval. And your statement gives credence (whether you like it or no) that the characterization was one that enhanced Arwen at a cost to Frodo. (One from which his character can survive.):)

[Harad]

Whether JRRT would have liked it or not, I can not say.


Contrary to what some critics have suggested, Tolkien's letters make clear that he was eager to do business with the Lidless Eye of Hollywood, and had few illusions about the compromises that might be required.

from that article in the book forum. I am sure its arguable.

From the standpoint of everybody who saw the movie that was not a book wonk (shirley the majority), Arwen's plus was appreciated, and Frodo's minus was not noticed.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Harad
From the standpoint of everybody who saw the movie that was not a book wonk (shirley the majority), Arwen's plus was appreciated, and Frodo's minus was not noticed.

Any non-Tolkienites probably couldn't have cared less who did what...they don't know any better...Glorfindel or some other nameless elf (even Arwen :eek: ) could have thrown Frodo on his horse and let the book play out and the ignorant public would have been just as pleased as punch...PJ could have pleased both sides...

It's the fan-base and purists who should have been catered too because they know and love the story....Some fat, nameless elf stuffing his face with lembas and farting elven tunes could have come and done it and the public would have thought that JRR was an interesting fellow to have characters like that.

Arwen's little role was far from creating audience enjoyment...Unless you're some lusty teenager who likes Liv Tyler...Steve Tyler's daughter...Jeeez, that right there should blow it...

[Grond]

Okay Thorin, you're just about over the line. Attacking PJ and Harad is one thing but taking it out on the beautiful and sultry Liv is unacceptable. You are nearing the point where you'll meet the business end of the "Malicious Mallet of Melkor". Assail anyone you desire.... except the beautiful Liv. :)

[Harad]

You downgrade everybody except a singular questionable taste. The movie was popular because it captured the essence of a popular work of fiction and was true to the spirit of it. If you think its so easy to make $700M (and counting) from a movie about Hobbits, make your own "Farting Elf Frolics" and get so rich you wont feel the need to complain anymore.

[madgonad]

Ignoring the fact that PJ wanted to make use of the hot and trendy actress that he cast, he has a good reason for changes he has made. Being male, like almost everyone else frequenting this board, I tend not to be sensitive to many issues. My wife, who has probably read every form of fantasy printed in the last fifty years, summed up LoTR very simply. Long, boring and sexist.
I of course have read it many times in the past twenty years, but her point is valid. The book's pacing is slow. Not too much action, and what action is present is glossed over. And summing up the female roles is pretty simple;

Lobelia Sackville-Baggins = haughty, *****y hobbit
Arwen = hot elf standing by Aragorn in Rivendale and in the end at Minas Tirith
Galadriel = nice lady who wishes the travelers luck storming the castle.
Eowyn = allows the MacBeth-style slaying of the WitchKing Nazgul and provides a wedding to unite Gondor and Rohan.

That's it. The women of Tolkien. Obviously PJ wants to sell tickets to the other 52% of the population, so he is going to give Arwen and Eowyn a greater part. In fact, I could be wrong, but I can't remember any lines in the books for either character that weren't spoken to Argorn in a pleasing way.
Oh, and the Orc-pod scene - I interpreted that as how Saruman bred the Uruk-Hai from orcs and men. Lurtz being the featured Uruk-Hai.

[Harad]

Welcome Madgonad,

Youre onto something.

Plus fulfilling that noble purpose, "Arwen" was well done, and in the spirit of LOTR.

[Grond]

Awww Harad, anyone who agrees with you is "on to something". I think the film could have been truer to the original writing and still been a bang up box office success. Oh my goodness, I, too, am "on to something.":)

[Harad]

Awww Harad, anyone who agrees with you is "on to something".

Nice of you to say he was agreeing with me. I was agreeing with him.

Find somebody that you agree with and you too can be argeeable.

[Grond]

Harad, you and I have found much to agree upon lately. I guess that makes us agreeable to each other on some issues. :)

[Harad]

It true. Next, a tennis game!

When Thorin agrees with me, then my work will be done.

I will then join the Ann Rice forum and negotiate peace between the Anti- and Pro-Aaliyah forces.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Harad
When Thorin agrees with me, then my work will be done.

Hah! Never!!! I'd rather die than see the ring on an elves fing... :confused:

Hmmm....Got carried away there by some sort of Dwarfish haughtiness. Where did that cheesy thought come from? I know it wasn't from Tolkien....Where the heck did I hear that?

[Snaga]

Originally posted by Thorin
Okay, I will say this....Because Arwen was needed to be in the movie more, she could have replaced Glorfindel and found the Company...I could live with that...But throw him on the horse and let the rest take it's course...The riding, the defiant, sword-raising ,. "if you want him...blah,blah" spell casting, tears in her eyes, "Hang on Frodo" healing **** was just plain overkill and that is what I have the most problem with.

I'm more or less happy with that statement. I don't personally have a problem with the 'riding, the defiant, sword-raising' myself - noone has convinced me that this definitely inconsistent with Tolkien's overall conception, even if it is not what was published. Same with the spell casting. I too wished Frodo had his defiant moment at the Fords, and you are right about the 'Hang on Frodo' stuff was just a bit cloying!

Originally posted by Thorin
it bothers me that for some reason I have to defend why it SHOULDN'T be in....Where the heck is the logic in that?

The reason is that you are attacking a film that many people really like. These people don't typically attack the book, therefore do not have defend themselves! Moreover you not only attack the film, you take up a tone that suggests that not only do you personally not like it, that there is something objectively wrong with it.

All the evidence is that there are very many devoted fans of the book who are really delighted with what PJ has done. So yes, I do think the onus is on you to back up your position. On the other hand, I'm perhaps less demanding than Harad. I don't expect you to agree with me on all points. I'd just like to get to a point where we can agree to differ, but feel like we get where the other person is coming from. Overall I'd say you feel as though PJ has let down the fans, and I don't think that's reasonable.

[Harad]

On the other hand, I'm perhaps less demanding than Harad. I don't expect you to agree with me on all points.

Do you seriously think I expect Thorin to agree with anything I say? He couldnt even agree that people outside America might not know what was posted in "7-11"s.

I am not arguing to convince the unconvinceable. If there is anybody else besides us reading these posts (how likely is that?) then I just do not want the record with his opinions left as objective facts: "JRRT would never..." "Arwen is inconsistent with JRRT characters..." and on and on and on.

Other movie bashers are even worse than Thorin in that they bash the movie for things that are IN the book (.e.g Elrond "letting" Isildur leave with the Ring) or for things that are otherwise "odd" in the book (the whole hilt-shard thread).

[Thorin]

And I for one, do not want to leave the threads without defending the book from all "should haves", "could haves" "it was in the spirit of Tolkien's characters" arguments that are used to justify PJ's creation and distortion of JRR's characters....

There are a lot of things that could have been in the spirit of Tolkien that would not be acceptable...Being in the "spirit of Tolkien" is a lame excuse to justify something that did not happen, nor was written that way....With that ridiculous argument, you could justify Aragorn directly attacking Sauron, Gandalf using the palantir, Galadriel taking out the orcs when Fellowship reaches Lorien, Galadriel taking and using the ring, and on and on and on....add all your own that could have been "in the spirit" of Tolkien and in-character....I highly suspect that even these changes could get the ire of all the FADs. The hard facts are that these things like XenArwen, though being in the "spirit" of Tolkien, are not Tolkien's LoTR as we know it...neither is PJ's Arwen.

The fact is, is that a movie claiming to be made from the book, and staying true to the book and not having major changes, should be held up to the standard from which it is made....Arwen and many other changes fall woefully short.....

Just admit you liked the part though it wasn't Tolkien, nor should have been put in, and I can accept that and we can put it all to rest....Keep needlessly justifying that foolish distortion of Arwen from a "spirit of Tolkien" perspective, and I will continue to defend ...;)

[Harad]

Another thing you dont understand is "spirit of Tolkien." For Arwen to become the hero of the story and kill Sauron would not be. For Arwen to do things that she might, had the character been filled out by JRRT (it wasnt), and take over some attributes of Glorfindel, thats just fine.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Harad
Another thing you dont understand is "spirit of Tolkien." For Arwen to become the hero of the story and kill Sauron would not be. For Arwen to do things that she might, had the character been filled out by JRRT (it wasnt), and take over some attributes of Glorfindel, thats just fine.


Oh my....Claiming what Arwen would have or could have been had Tolkien filled her out is appaling to say the least, especially considering that you get on my case for saying things like "JRR would never..."

Please...."had the character been filled out??" Had the character even been considered by JRR for the type of role that PJ used her for, and she was in the "spirit" of Tolkien's character, don't you think there would have been some extended role in LoTR that even remotely resembled PJ's Arwen? I think Tolkien had enough time and space to expand Arwen's role, never mind make her some sort of Elven warrior. The fact is, is that Tolkien could have expanded her role....he did not. And there is absolutely no evidence that had he expanded her role, she would have tracked Aragorn, replaced Glorfindel, challenged the Nazgul, brought the waves down by chanting a spell and then practically healing Frodo, or done anything like that....Your support is lacking (and trying to draw on the "spirit of Luthien" is feeble) and you are seriously grabbing at straws, Harad.

Once again, "might haves", "could haves" and "should haves" are a redundant argument. Especially to try and use Tolkien to justify a cinematically created character introduced solely for the purpose of:

1) kill two birds with one stone in terms of introducing characters
2) give the movie more pizazz and enhance the female roles

[Harad]

Arwen is a VERY minor character in the book. JRRT chose to do her that way. We dont know ANYTHING about her except the barest minimum. Does that mean that was all there was to her life?

The activities that she performed in the movie were all activities described in the book. IMO and that of many who enjoyed the movie, the composite character Arwen fit into the spirit of JRRT. I have at least as much insight into this as you do.

[Snaga]

Harad, you are mistaken: Thorin has a ouijah board I think!;)

[Grond]

Originally posted by Harad
...The activities that she performed in the movie were all activities described in the book. IMO and that of many who enjoyed the movie, the composite character Arwen fit into the spirit of JRRT. I have at least as much insight into this as you do. I concur Harad except for her presence at the Fords which gives her a composite part of Frodo/Elrond/Gandalf which IMO cannot be justified. You defeat your own argument by endorsing that part of her portrayal. Had she merely been a composite of Glorfindel/Arwen, that would have been okay but PJ imbued a part of existing characters (Frodo, Elrond and Gandalf) to her. How do you justify that...enhancing one character to the detriment of others? Or do you just assert that Frodo and the others had enough character to pass around?

If so, then IMO your argument should be that as long as someone might have done something that another character in the movie could have done, that should be endorsed. Following further along that line of logic, we could have had Aragorn give in to his desire for the Ring, die protecting Merry and Pippin and had Boromir lead the Hunters after the Isengarders. That would actually make sense because, after all, Boromir is the rightful heir to the Stewardship of Gondor. :(

[Thorin]

Yes, that is why this whole "spirit of Tolkien" argument is so flawed. There are alot of things that could have occured that would have been true to the "spirit of Tolkien" but absolutely unacceptable to the story and to the legion of fans that LoTR has accumulated in the 50+ years of it's existence.

When you start making such ludicrous changes and justifying it with feeble arguments, you open the door for many other ludicrous changes.

When you are making a movie on the book and are claiming to stick to the book, the spirit is not enough...Stick with the facts and reality of what the author did...Especially with an epic like LoTR that is considered the greatest book of the 20th century.

[Harad]

Choices by artists are just that. Whether you want to accept it or not is then your choice. JRRT wrote a book, great but imperfect. PJ made a movie, certainly with flaws in it. I liked it. Many others did as well. Its place in film history remains to be seen. I doubt very much you all were on the LOTR band wagon in 1960.

Lets concentrate on the issue that Grond complains about: Arwen is on the horse with Frodo.

In the book, Glorfindel drives the Nazgul into the river. In the movie, Arwen lures the Nazgul into the river. So that isnt the issue. What Grond (and I as mentioned before) would prefer is that Frodo would have defied the Nazgul, as in the book. So the real problem is not that Arwen has an extra scence--SHE ESSENTIALLY DOES WHAT GLORFINDEL DID--but that Frodo has lost his scene.

How does this alter the spirit, the plot, the character of JRRT.

Not to any significant amount, IMO. Certainly the action at the Ford of Bruinen is about the same and the results are exactly the same. I argue in other places that Frodo is shown to be brave in many places in the movie, and in fact on Amon Hen, is shown to be braver than in the book, since he escapes from the Big Red Eye without the help of Gandalf.

As far as Thorin's ridiculous suggestions, we can be thankful that he wasnt involved in making the movie.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Thorin
Yes, that is why this whole "spirit of Tolkien" argument is so flawed. There are alot of things that could have occured that would have been true to the "spirit of Tolkien" but absolutely unacceptable to the story and to the legion of fans that LoTR has accumulated in the 50+ years of it's existence.

When you start making such ludicrous changes and justifying it with feeble arguments, you open the door for many other ludicrous changes.

When you are making a movie on the book and are claiming to stick to the book, the spirit is not enough...Stick with the facts and reality of what the author did...Especially with an epic like LoTR that is considered the greatest book of the 20th century. And here I am again, stuck in between the Great Dwarf and the Great Easterner. I feel that your descriptions are also exaggerated Thorin. Ludicrous changes and feeble arguments are entirely too strong a portrayal of what has happened. For many, PJ's works are leading them to read the LotR for the first time and, after all, it is an interpretation of the work. I feel some things could have been done much, much better but I feel that most of the movie was portrayed very well.

And yes Thorin, I thought Pippin and Merry appeared to be buffoons but will cut PJ some slack until I see how he develops them later on. I'm sure he's going for creative character development here which will emphasize them at both extremes of the characterization... from buffoon to ultimate hero. We will just have to wait and see. Again I reiterate, as both a realist and a purist, the movie is a success in bringing Middle-earth to the screen; but, it could have been just as successful and still been truer to the book. After all, my main criticism is the Fords scene only. All of the rest could have been overcome by developing themes in the next two movies. Unfortunately, as I've said before, PJ's latest statements now lead me to believe that I will more disappointed with the TT and RotK than I was with FotR. I will wait and see though before I make judgement.:)

[Grond]

Originally posted by Harad
Choices by artists are just that. Whether you want to accept it or not is then your choice. JRRT wrote a book, great but imperfect. PJ made a movie, certainly with flaws in it. I liked it. Many others did as well. Its place in film history remains to be seen. I doubt very much you all were on the LOTR band wagon in 1960.

Lets concentrate on the issue that Grond complains about: Arwen is on the horse with Frodo.

In the book, Glorfindel drives the Nazgul into the river. In the movie, Arwen lures the Nazgul into the river. So that isnt the issue. What Grond (and I as mentioned before) would prefer is that Frodo would have defied the Nazgul, as in the book. So the real problem is not that Arwen has an extra scence--SHE ESSENTIALLY DOES WHAT GLORFINDEL DID--but that Frodo has lost his scene.

How does this alter the spirit, the plot, the character of JRRT.

Not to any significant amount, IMO. Certainly the action at the Ford of Bruinen is about the same and the results are exactly the same. I argue in other places that Frodo is shown to be brave in many places in the movie, and in fact on Amon Hen, is shown to be braver than in the book, since he escapes from the Big Red Eye without the help of Gandalf.

As far as Thorin's ridiculous suggestions, we can be thankful that he wasnt involved in making the movie. And, Harad, here you are on the other extreme. Arwen does much, much more than Glorfindel did. Glorfindel 1) provided a little healer relief, 2) he loaned Frodo his horse and 3) he "scared" the remaining bankbound Nazgul off the banks and into the flooding river. He did not 4) resurrect Frodo, he did not 5) carry Frodo on his horse, he did not 6) defy the Lord of the Nazgul in direct confrontation, he did not 7) call down the flood, and he did not 8) place riders on the crest of the waves. All of those things were done by other people. Let's see we have 1) Glorfindel, 2) Glorfindel, 3) Glorfindel, 4) no-one, 5) Frodo, 6) Frodo, 7) Elrond and 8) Gandalf.

Harad that seems to me to be a little more than you portray. It might even sound like a significant distortion of the characterizations of many characters. I could even say that Arwen's breathing life into a dying Hobbit might even be Messianic. Also, Thorin is entitled to his opinions and as I have chastised him for using strong descriptives for describing the changes in the books, I must chastise you for describing his opinions as ridiculous. After all, his opinions are shared by many on the forum and are ridiculous to you and not to them.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Harad
Choices by artists are just that. Whether you want to accept it or not is then your choice. JRRT wrote a book, great but imperfect. PJ made a movie, certainly with flaws in it.

So the real problem is not that Arwen has an extra scence--SHE ESSENTIALLY DOES WHAT GLORFINDEL DID--but that Frodo has lost his scene.

How does this alter the spirit, the plot, the character of JRRT.

If PJ wanted to make Gandalf a cross-dresser and defend it by "artistic choice" or "director's interpretation" that is his perogative...That doesn't mean that it is right when comparing it to the standard that he claims to be following so faithfully: Tolkien's LoTR. Nor does that mean that he shouldn't be held responsible (after all his claims) to remain true to the characters as JRR wrote them....

As I've said for the umpteenth time...I could make ALOT of changes to LoTR and still keep it in the "spirit" of LoTR...That doesn't mean that it would be acceptable or right....Why should Arwen all of a sudden be so acceptable?

I, however, do not fully agree with Grond...I feel that Arwen does not belong there PERIOD and that it alters the character of JRRT drastically....

[Harad]

That doesn't mean that it is right when comparing it to the standard that he claims to be following so faithfully: Tolkien's LoTR.

All your opinion. Unfortunately, it makes no sense: how can it be in the "spirit of JRRT," and also be wrong? That is a contradiction using any sensible meaning of "spirit of JRRT." Of course, you can, and do, twist the language in a feeble attempt to make a point.

[Thorin]

Maybe you need to clarify how Arwen's role in PJs movie is in "the spirit of Tolkien". We don't know what Arwen could have done or if she would have done the things she did....The fact is, is that Tolkien shows us that she obviously didn't do the things she did in the movie...The obvious lack of character development in Tolkien's book shows what a minor character she is. Where in any of Tolkien's writings do you see support concerning Arwen for Arwen's actions in the movie? Luthien? Please. Luthien is not Arwen.


To me having PJ create scenes where Gandalf levitates, or fights with more magic would be in the spirit of his character...He could do those things and he is a wizard. Having an elven princess who does nothing in the book come in kicking the doors down and taking everybody's roles is not in the spirit of her character at all.

And Harad, you haven't commented on anything I have said concerning Arwen and the spirit of Tolkien in the last few posts...Despite the fact that you obviously have no respect for my opinions, I feel that I have raised some valid arguments over your "spirit" theory to explain such a distortion.

If I am wrong in interpreting "spirit", correct me and make a little bit more of an effort to give a better rebuttal to other's arguments then what you've given....I'd rather have a decent excuse for your views then sanctimonious drivel.

[Harad]

I have addressed this issue but you arent reading...you don't want to.

1. All the actions that the movie Arwen takes are in the book, albeit by other characters--except of course being Aragorn's betrothed. Not only are her actions in the "spirit" they are in the book directly.

2. It has already been proven that JRRT characters like the movie Arwen are in the Silmarillion and in LOTR. The "despised" Luthien is an Elf Maiden who uses magic to fight the Great Enemy. Eowyn is a contemporary maiden that fights with weapons. Therefore the movie idea that an Elf Maiden COULD do these actions is in the "spirit."

3.What's left? That the book Arwen doesnt do these things. Finally, thats what a composite character is all about. Take an existing character and combine actions of other characters that are thereby altered or left out entirely.

1 & 2 prove that the movie Arwen is in the "spirit." You don't like 3. That's YOUR choice.

[Thorin]

Okay, like I thought, I fully understood what you meant by being in the "spirit"

No, you haven't addressed the issue...You still haven't addressed my argument about the numerous things I could do to the movie yet still stay within the boundaries of being "in the spirit of Tolkien"....Are you honestly telling me that PJ could do whatever he wanted to the characters and plot as long as it was in the spirit of Tolkien? I have a feeling that you'd be alone in that regard....That is why I am saying trying to justify the character distortion by using the spirit of Tolkien argument is flawed. You haven't addressed that at all....Apparently you don't want to see the point.

Was not the purpose of this movie to create a great rendition of Tolkien's LoTR? Do you not do that by staying true to the source? What is stopping PJ from practically changing the whole thing as long as he is staying "true to the spirit of Tolkien?" It's a wishy-washy justification because you can move so far from the written source and any Tolkien fan would find that unacceptable.....

[Snaga]

Originally posted by Grond
If so, then IMO your argument should be that as long as someone might have done something that another character in the movie could have done, that should be endorsed. Following further along that line of logic, we could have had Aragorn give in to his desire for the Ring, die protecting Merry and Pippin and had Boromir lead the Hunters after the Isengarders. That would actually make sense because, after all, Boromir is the rightful heir to the Stewardship of Gondor. :(

Lets use Grond's example to try to define what would be 'in the spirit'. On one level this works in that, yes a man dies at Parth Galen, and the surviving man in the Fellowship leads the pursuit of the orcs. But on the other hand this would be a ludicrous change primarily because its central to the plot that Aragorn is crowned king after the defeat of Sauron. This alone invalidates this as a change.

What major plot change is enforced by Arwen's role? None at all. The story can proceed, with no alterations. It is completely free-standing.

I'd add some other tests.

Does it radically alter the nature / texture of Middle Earth? If so I don't see how.

Does it give to major characters actions that they would not have taken? Arwen is by no means a major character - her development is insignificant. So what she could or couldn't have done is impossible to say. Those who argue that the scene was wrong on this basis will need to work hard to prove it. (If you just don't like, fine, you're entitled to your opinion).

Does it significantly detract from the development of other characters? And here as I've repeatedly said I think there is more of a case - Frodo loses a big moment. Harad argues with some merit that his courage is and will be shown elsewhere. Not to my satisfaction, but I will concede his point that the real issue is in Frodo's portrayal overall. As for Elrond losing command of the river, or even better Gandalf losing responsibility for the white horses... please!

Those are the tests I'd apply. They are not specific to this scene so may be used elsewhere. I think they are clear and address the key issues: plot, nature of Middle-Earth, and characterisation. If you don't like them, I'd be interested to know why. If you think I've misapplied them, well that would be valid comment too.:)

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Variag of Khand
What major plot change is enforced by Arwen's role?