Flight to the Ford [Archive] - THE TOLKIEN FORUM

ReadWryt

01-20-2002, 08:34 PM

If you have not allready, you should check out the threads having to do with Helms Deep photos from the film. Nothing get MY blood pressure rising faster then pictures of Arwen on Horseback surrounded by Orcs swinging a sword over her head, or beaten and bruised presumably from having been in battle. The "Flight to the Ford" was only a taste of the heroism that can be wrought by the youngest and most protected of Elrond's children and her remarkable command of her sword, which of course EVERY elf must have training in using...

It was just more hollywood claptrap and catering to the Demographics instead of the Story...

Greenwood

01-21-2002, 12:58 AM

pictures of Arwen on Horseback surrounded by Orcs swinging a sword over her head,

ReadWryt

Do you have a link for these pictures? I certainly haven't seen them and I thought I had checked out the various links.

[Later edit by Greenwood]

Just zipped over to the film section to double check those Helm's Deep pictures. I can't seem to find a single one of Arwen surrounded by orcs swinging a sword over her head or anything even vaguely like it. ReadWryt, do you have some links that are not posted over there? Or have I missed them entirely?

Grond

01-21-2002, 04:42 AM

Greenwood, discussion on the issue is located here http://www3.tolkienonline.com/docs/1313.html .

I've looked a good bit and find no visual confirmation aka a picture of Arwen in any action sequence on the TT. But the evidence is almost unquestionable that she filmed multiple fight scenes at Helm's Deep. The uncertainty is only if PJ will use them.

daisy

01-21-2002, 05:07 AM

There is a website - either onering or lord of the rings.com or something, where they have pages and pages of still shots from all three films, and they organise it book by book. I think there is a link on a thread somewhere in FOTR film thread???? Anyway, there were a couple photos of Arwen at Helm's Deep but she is not wielding a sword in these. Also some good White Rider shots and Voice of Saruman, etcetera. Pretty good photos, but they are kind-of spoilers....

If I find exact location i will come back and post it.

Greenwood

01-21-2002, 05:58 AM

Grond

I love hearing that something is "almost unquestionable" but there is no proof. It leaves me feeling that I am absolutely certain that I am uncertain. :)

Grond

01-21-2002, 06:12 AM

Ah Greenwood, I will accept your sarcasm with a grain of salt because I can see from your post that you haven't visited the cite. If you had you would read their evidence and agree with me. A picture is fairly conclusive evidence but so are interviews with the actors, character summaries taken from official movie documents and the like. Make of it what you will, I was responding to what I read and offering my opinion. I guess I should have left out the latter.:(

ReadWryt

01-21-2002, 06:24 AM

Greenwood,

Here is where I get "poo poo'ed" as extracting more from pictures then is humanly available. The first picture I submit is this shot of Arwen riding away from the fray...If you look closely you can see it is her, and that is the tack and harnessing for her horse. Exhibit A (http://www.numenoreen.com/Images/AVHelm.jpg) Please note the Gold Clasps (Presumably for holding a cape of some sort) on the shoulders of both individuals (Exhibits A&B) and the fact that the outfit in this photo is similar if not identical (Hard to tell in this picture) to the one she is wearing in Exhibit C.

This second photo is the "iffy" one, but I am at least 85% certain that the dark haired, fair skinned person on the White Horse with head gear identical to the one in the first photo off to the right of this splendid shot of Gandalf the White is indeed Arwen. Exhibit B (http://www.numenoreen.com/Images/GandalfHelm.jpg )

Now on to the Results of this activity. What is an Elven Warrior Princess to do in the field of battle without a score of Makeup artists to "Fix" her up after a hard battle? Well, here you see what happens when you can't "Freshen Up" after a long hard fight with the powers of evil. Exhibit C (http://www.quintessentialwebsites.com/lordoftherings/movieshots/arwen_onhorse_tn.jpg) An image I picked up from _Here_ (http://www.quintessentialwebsites.com/lordoftherings/movieshots/Book3_Chapter07.htm#VII) , a site which has put the many images they have collected in chronological order according to when they happen in the books.

I've poured over these things in Photoshop, used every trick I know to clean them up and am still working on them, and should I make any headway I might post the cleaned up versions some place and make them available.

lilhobo

01-21-2002, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by Greenwood
Grond

I love hearing that something is "almost unquestionable" but there is no proof. It leaves me feeling that I am absolutely certain that I am uncertain. :)

seems to be a trait of this forum if u dont mind me saying :D

whos using photoshop to blow up and convict poor arwen elven warrior princess???

oh my gosh, you are re defining NPWs lol :D

Greenwood

01-21-2002, 04:24 PM

Ah Greenwood, I will accept your sarcasm with a grain of salt because I can see from your post that you haven't visited the cite. If you had you would read their evidence and agree with me.

Grond

You make an unwarranted assumption. :) I visited the site you cite (sorry, the pun was irresistible) and carefully read it before posting. I found it unconvincing. It has lots of rumors and also contradictory reports. (I notice there are references there to rumors about Arwen joining the Fellowship or being in Moria with them. I would say the rumor mill for these films has a less than 100% record of accuracy.) Besides even if there was proof that they filmed Arwen fighting at Helm's Deep, that is not proof that she will be doing it in the final film. Did you ever see the movie Fatal Attraction with Michael Douglas and Glenn Close? In the version first filmed, Glenn Close commits suicide with a knife that has Michael Douglas's finger prints on it and the film ends with him being arrested for her murder. Rather different that the released version with Glenn Close being shot by Douglas's wife after breaking in and attacking them. The point is that, as you say even if PJ shot the scenes, which I don't see conclusive proof of, it is still unknown if they will actually appear in the final picture.

ReadWryt

I had seen all of the pictures you cite. Exhibit A is probably (though not conclusively) Arwen, though I cannot tell if that is a battle scene she is riding through. Exhibit B is indeed a battle scene and I will admit I did not notice the figure you refer to off to the right, but this figure is far less conclusively Arwen than even the inconclusive exhibit A. Exhibit C to me looks like a publicity still rather than an actual shot from the movie. I also not that therre are no gold clasps on the outfit that you pointedly refer to in exhibits A and B. Finally, let me grant for a moment that you are correct in Exhibits A and B being Arwen. None of them match your initial contention of "pictures of Arwen on Horseback surrounded by Orcs swinging a sword over her head". I asked you for a link because you have a habit of getting carried away by your opinions and making declarations of fact that you later have difficulty substantiating. (I sincerely hope this does not get me a first strike as a personal attack. :( )

Two final points. First, I do not know if Arwen is going to be at Helem's Deep (fighting or otherwise) in the second movie or not. It does not appear to me that anyone, with the possible exception of Peter Jackson and his immediate co-workers know that for sure. I am willing to wait and see at the end of the year. I am unwilling to spend the next eleven months losing sleep over a rumor. If it turns out to be true, I will wait to see the actual movie to see whether it does any irreparable harm to the spirit of the story. Two, Walter is right, this whole thread should probably be moved to the film section.

Grond

01-21-2002, 04:41 PM

Ahhhh Greenwood, we all do get worked up in these discussions, don't we! In my second to last post I stated, "The uncertainty is only if PJ will use them." I didn't list every site (thanks for correcting me) that I went to which hardened my opinion but regardless of my findings I can assure you sleep won't be lost. I will again go into the theatre with a closed mind (that is closing it to any memories of the book) and fully enjoy every single scene, especially those Liv Tyler is in. I love her and can watch her all day. The movie will be great for a movie and then I'll come home and get out my book The Two Towers and nitpick the movie apart. Get it..... I'll enjoy the Movie, I'll enjoy the book again, and I'll then enjoy NPW the whole thing on this forum. I will acknowledge that film is a different medium than the book and then tell everyone exactly how I felt is should have been filmed. 'Cause that's what this forum is all about.:)

Greenwood

01-21-2002, 05:06 PM

I will again go into the theatre with a closed mind (that is closing it to any memories of the book) and fully enjoy every single scene, especially those Liv Tyler is in. I love her and can watch her all day. The movie will be great for a movie and then I'll come home and get out my book The Two Towers

Grond, O mighty hammer, we are in agreement. :)

In my second to last post I stated, "The uncertainty is only if PJ will use them." I didn't list every site (thanks for correcting me)

I did indeed note your uncertainty and refer to it in the last sentence of the section of my post that responded to you. And I did not mean my pun as a correction, but just as a pun. In fact I had to edit it twice to correct my own misspellings. :) :)

ReadWryt

01-21-2002, 10:10 PM

This is the last posting on the subject of the movie I will make here, and I offer this only as what it is, more dffinition to the question at hand...at least where my statements have been concerned.

I submit this image, which I have made from Exhibit A and B and which I have done nothing more then Crop, enlarge and run a "Despeckling" routine on as they were enlarged (Making minor "Blurriness" around the harder edges of the image and then reducing the total effect by 50% with each enlargement untill they were each over 10000 pixels tall), and then an incrimental Sharpen Edges function as I reduced them via a few steps, each time sharpening a tiny bit to eek out the higher contrast portions from the JPEG aliasing...

Grond

01-21-2002, 10:20 PM

I would give it a 85-90% probability that it is Arwen with a sword.

But that's just me.:)

lilhobo

01-22-2002, 12:01 AM

"relax, its only GALADRIEL" :eek:

just to steal someone else's assertion :D

daisy

01-22-2002, 12:18 AM

Maybe because I am a girl, or because I lived through Princess Leia, it still seems that Arwen has her hair back in some sort of ponytail whatever in the publicity shot and another photo I saw from Helm's Deep, but then Readwryt, your photo has an elf with half hair back, in a style we chickies call a Victoria, though I have no idea why ( do not look for a Queen connection because I don't think there is one). Your photo clearly shows flowing hair, and also, one of them looks like the figure has quite a pronounced brow. So I am going to give a 55% probability that the photos are Arwen. Although, i am fairly convinced that Arwen pops up at Helm's Deep.

Thorin

01-22-2002, 01:05 AM

Forgive me for continuing what should be a movie thread...

Arwen just BEING at Helm's Deep, never mind fighting there is another horrible travesty to Tolkien's beloved character and anyone who defends it and justifies it's reason should be spanked and put to bed....Tolkien would roll over in his grave if he saw what was being done to her character and anyone who even denies that needs to take a hard look at what Tolkien created and why....then they need to ask themselves if they are a fan of Tolkien or not...

Just my opinion on all this Arwen foolishness...

Greenwood,

What makes you think with the horrible distortion Jackson has already made to Arwen's character, that he won't have her in all the action in the next two movies, doing uncharacteristic like things he created her out to do? I highly doubt Liv Tyler spent 18 months in New Zealand to film her "heroic" flight to the Ford and her love scene with Viggo. I do agree with you that the real question is whether or not PJ will use the footage....I don't see why he wouldn't. I will not lose sleep over it either...I expect further pillage to Arwen's character and will not be surprised by it...What I will be suprised is all the "Tolkien fans" who will justify it to the 'nth' degree like what has already been done on the first movie. :rolleyes:

lilhobo

01-22-2002, 01:18 AM

there are only two great themes in the Lord of the Rings

1. the Arwen-Aragorn union: the real travesty is JRR only gave an appendix note on what is the greatest sacrifice in all of ME

2. the dual personality of Smeagol that most people will relate to in a fantasy setting.

People can say about the sacrifice of Frodo....BUT remeber he FAILED

daisy

01-22-2002, 02:08 AM

Huh what???

Frodo failed??? You mean because...okay, how???

lilhobo

01-22-2002, 02:16 AM

well since this aint the movie forum!! :D

Frodo didnt throw IT into the Crack of Doom, he wanted it for himself

i mean, how was this hobbit gonna destroy something everyone else desires so much.

WOULD YOU THROW A MILLION DOLLAR CASH INTO THE FIRE???

Mormegil

01-22-2002, 02:21 AM

True

No-one could throw away a thing like that when push came to shove. Frodo did fail in his mission, but we can't blame him for it. Thank goodness for that little sneak Gollum.

daisy

01-22-2002, 02:27 AM

Dears,

perhaps to take the ring to the fires of Mount Doom and then choke WAS Frodo's mission. He was the Ringbearer, not the RIngthrower - when Gandalf stated that Gollum may have had a part to play, he was right. Gollum was the final piece in the puzzle.

I view Frodo to be a fabulous success.

Greenwood

01-22-2002, 03:04 AM

ReadWryt

I have looked at your enhanced version of exhibits B and C. I would suggest you not submit them to a court of law for the following reasons: 1) They are not definitively Arwen. 2) It is still not clear that exhibit B is a battle scene and it is not clear that whatever is being held is a sword. I could easily advance an argument that it looks like some sort of riding crop. 3) It is not clear in exhibit C that the sword you point to is being wielded by the person on horseback. Putting legalistic arguments aside, let us accept for a minute that the images show what you think they show. You still do not know that these scenes are going to be in the final version of the movie eleven months from now. As has been pointed out, it is not unusual for scenes to be shot for a movie that are never used. The rumor mill for these films has a less than 100% accuracy record.

Thorin

Your attitude that you know what Tolkien would feel about something done thirty years after he died, and that anyone who does not agree with your viewpoints about Tolkien's views and the movie, is not a true Tolkien fan is precisely why we find each other on the opposite sides of so many debates on this forum. I have been reading and loving Tolkien's works for longer than most of the members on this forum have been alive (that includes you) and I resent any implication that I, or anyone else who enjoyed the movie, is not a Tolkien fan because they do not agree with your personal opinions.

Strider97

01-22-2002, 04:24 AM

Just a thought concerning Arwen and her possible battle scenes. If PJ has already condensed Glorfindle's role at the Ford into Arwen's character it is very possible he has done the same with the roles of Elrohir and Elladan. They rode with the Dunedain and met up with Aragorn just pass the mounds at the fords of Isen. They brought the message from Elrond about the Path of the Dead and Halbarad brought the Banner as a gift from the lady of Rivendell. Maybe PJ had Arwen bring it herself. This meeting takes place after Helms Deep but the possibility that it is chronologically shifted does exist. That would explain her presence at Helms Deep. I have been enjoying the trilogy since the 1969 and read it at least once annually. IMHO, The movies should be enjoyed for what they are and the changes to the story have been minimal so far. Those changes are definitely overshadowed by the fact that an entire new audience has been introduced to the wonderful and magical world that we have enjoyed for so long.

Thorin

01-23-2002, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by Greenwood
Thorin

Your attitude that you know what Tolkien would feel about something done thirty years after he died, and that anyone who does not agree with your viewpoints about Tolkien's views and the movie, is not a true Tolkien fan is precisely why we find each other on the opposite sides of so many debates on this forum. I have been reading and loving Tolkien's works for longer than most of the members on this forum have been alive (that includes you) and I resent any implication that I, or anyone else who enjoyed the movie, is not a Tolkien fan because they do not agree with your personal opinions.

Sorry, Green....I must disagree with you. I believe Greymantle's signature where Tolkien stated his distaste for the changing and distortion of his characters is true blue. You may apply that to only Disney, but I see no evidence from his statement that it didn't apply to everything else, nor do I see you providing any evidence that Tolkien would approve enormous distortion of his characters. The facts show otherwise.

Making Gandalf bump his head may be a bit out of character for Gandalf, but I highly doubt that it would be something Tolkien would really protest...Taking a passive, Elven princess who is a minor character and making her fly to the Fords, challenge the Ringwraiths, fight at Helm's Deep with a sword in her hand and PMS to drive her, however, is something that I feel Tolkien would definitely disapprove of....It destroys the character Tolkien created and it horribly distorts the role she has to play...I fail to see where I would be wrong in stating that.

Arwen's role is not only non-Tolkien, but anti-Tolkien. Her role at the Ford and her invented role at Helm's Deep is plain old silly and wrong and if you can't see that, there's something wrong. For a Tolkien fan to agree with something along the line of "Hey, that's okay, to each his own. She could have done that!" is not an opinion of someone who would call themselves a true Tolkien fan...I would hope that such a change would disgust you...And I would also hope that for someone who has read it for so long, you would hold the book and it's characters with a little more sanctity.

You want to **** on me for stating what should be obvious to any Tolkien fan, be my guest. I hold fast to my earlier statement.

Greenwood

01-23-2002, 07:38 AM

Arwen's role is not only non-Tolkien, but anti-Tolkien.

Thorin

I have given you my opinions of your reasoning in a private message. Publicly, I ask you to back up the above statement. How, specifically, is Arwen's role "anti-Tolkien'? You have made a straight statement, you should be able to back it up.

ReadWryt

01-23-2002, 08:40 AM

Greenwood,

Indeed, and since Mr. Jackson is apparently from reports returning to New Zealand to shoot more, it would be interesting to know which actors will be called to return for more shooting. Not that I think he plans on assembling 70 or so extras to get back into Orc gear to reshoot an entire battle mind you...

But getting back to the scene from the book, I allways found it interesting that Frodo barely got down the hill before the Nazgul caught up with him. They seem much faster then the average riders on horseback, which made me think that covering the distance from the Buckland gate to anywhere they wanted to go would have been of less challenge then the Hobbist presume in the book. Granted, a short sprint is much different then a long hard ride, as is demonstrated by the differences between Quarter Horse races and, say, the Irish Derby...but still, I think that the Hobbits got lucky because they underestimated the speed that the Wraiths could travel.

Greenwood

01-23-2002, 09:08 AM

But getting back to the scene from the book, I allways found it interesting that Frodo barely got down the hill before the Nazgul caught up with him. They seem much faster then the average riders on horseback, which made me think that covering the distance from the Buckland gate to anywhere they wanted to go would have been of less challenge then the Hobbist presume in the book. Granted, a short sprint is much different then a long hard ride, as is demonstrated by the differences between Quarter Horse races and, say, the Irish Derby...but still, I think that the Hobbits got lucky because they underestimated the speed that the Wraiths could travel.

Were we discussing this? I am afraid I am lost.

lilhobo

01-23-2002, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Thorin

Arwen's role is not only non-Tolkien, but anti-Tolkien.

So the question beckons, what is tolkienism??? racism, anti-modern woman, homosexuelle

How can a passive elven queen defy the will of her father and that of her race to sacrifice the gift of the gods, for a man many rungs below her???

does that sound passive to anyone??? everyone dreams of that perfect eleven princess that lives down the garden path that they want to marry and that was how Tolkien wanted it too, am sure.....problem is PJ saw a future queen whose fate SHOULD be linked to her realm

Bucky

01-23-2002, 09:41 AM

Well, here I go......

>>>>Tolkien would roll over in his
grave if he saw what was being done to her character and anyone who even
denies that needs to take a hard look at what Tolkien created and why....then
they need to ask themselves if they are a fan of Tolkien or not...

Q. Why DID Tolkien create TLTR?
A. 'The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of the readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them.' - JRR Tolkien, Forward to the 2nd Edition.

Q. Just what is Peter Jackson doing?
A. Making a movie form based on this tale.
I've seen it twice, & both times, the movie held the attention of the viewer, amused them, delighted them, & at times excited them or deeply moved them.
At each showing, I saw two, yes TWO people get up during this 3 hour movie. I'm talking four out of 500+.
And, yes, I've read TLTR about 25 times, I knew EVERY change they made.
And guess what?
I didn't care. I loved it any way.

So what if it didn't copy the book perfectly?
What movie, even The Godfather or Frankenstein did?

You want a perfect copy of the book?
Then read THE BOOK!

As for Tolkien rolling over in his grave, I thought the only thing he asked for was 'respect for LIVING authors' (i.e. don't rip me off).
He himself was changing things in The Silmarillion right up to his death.
And, he points out in the above mentioned Forward:
"The most critical reader, myself, now finds many defects, minor & major, but fortunately being under no obligation....."

Lighten up.
It's not like somebody made a movie about Jesus where He's involved in a love triangle with Mary & Martha......

lilhobo

01-23-2002, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Bucky
Lighten up.
It's not like somebody made a movie about Jesus where He's involved in a love triangle with Mary & Martha......

Give PJ an oscar and am sure he will try it :D :D :D

erhmm maybe already done "the last temptation of Christ" :D

Grond

01-23-2002, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by lilhobo
So the question beckons, what is tolkienism??? racism, anti-modern woman, homosexuelle

How can a passive elven queen defy the will of her father and that of her race to sacrifice the gift of the gods, for a man many rungs below her???

does that sound passive to anyone??? everyone dreams of that perfect eleven princess that lives down the garden path that they want to marry and that was how Tolkien wanted it too, am sure.....problem is PJ saw a future queen whose fate SHOULD be linked to her realm God lilhobo, that sounds absolutely Haradish. I'm convinced now that Harad has three handles on this site, Harad, Squeeky and lilhobo.:(

Greenwood

01-23-2002, 05:59 PM

Bucky

I agree with you completely. Everytime you challenge statements like "Arwen's role is not only non-Tolkien, but anti-Tolkien" the response is that Tolkien intended his female characters as passive, innocent, stay-at-home types, particularly the female elves. Whenever I point to Eowyn and Luthien Tinuviel in response and point out that Luthien makes even Xena look like a wimp, the response is merely an indignant sputter. The statement is undefendable except by claims of being able to KNOW the thoughts of a man dead for nearly thirty years. Thorin has already told me in a private message that he will not take up the challenge of defending his statement. I accept that as an indication of the strength of his argument.

Grond

01-23-2002, 07:17 PM

Greenwood, if Thorin won't I will. The innate strength of women as illustrated through the texts is one of a unwilling warrior at most. Only for love of a Man did she endanger herself. Yes, Arwen loves Aragorn, but Aragorn is not in danger, Frodo is. Since Arwen has no love for Frodo (at least at the time of the rescue) this clearly is out of the context of Tolkien's characterization in the book. There is no single example of a female Elf entering into physical combat with any adversary. Sure, Luthien stands up to Melkor and yes she throws open the dungeons of Gorthaur but she does it with guile and magic. She is never clad in armor and carrying a weapon. Luthien's greatest defense is her magic (aka woven hair cloak) and her beauty. It is that same great beauty and guile and Elven magic that are her weapons and not the sword, shield, or horse that made Arwen appear Xena-like in the movie. The only defendable part of the portrayal in my way of thinking is the Elf spell Arwen casts to raise the waters of Bruinen. At least that was something Luthien might do.

Also, stating that the characterization of Arwen in the movie is consistent with JRRT's intent is, to me, a real stretch and one that I vehemently disagree with. I think PJ could have found more subtle ways to include Arwen's characterization in the movie without making her an active combat participant who has no such role in the book. That's my opinion of which everyone is entitled to at least one! :)

Greenwood

01-23-2002, 07:45 PM

Grond

I have no problem with your opinion. Nowhere have I contended that the Arwen in the movie is consistent with the Arwen in the book. Clearly, the Arwen in the movie is not the Arwen in the book. I have never even expressed an opinion about whether I liked the Arwen in the movie better than the Arwen in the book. In fact I don't and would have preferred the book version. What I have said is that I understand PJ's reasons. That is not the same as agreeing with them. A concept Thorin seems unable to grasp.

I have argued, and will continue to argue, against blanket statements that Tolkien would never have a female character behave as Arwen does in the movie. In an earlier incarnation of this debate, ReadWryt went so far as to declare that there was no use of magic in Tolkien's work and challenged people to come up with examples. That is an example of the lengths some have gone to attack what they didn't like.

You are right that Luthien is never portrayed as clad in armor and carrying a weapon, but the arguments that have been advanced in the past have rarely restricted themselves to female elves, but have usually placed a limit on all of Tolkien's female characters. Eowyn is clad in armor and goes into battle. As for Arwen, at least in this movie she is never clad in armor and never engages in combat (we will see what happens in the next film). You say that Luthien used guile and magic to defeat Sauron and Morgoth. I see the movie Arwen using guile (challenging the Nazgul to enter the river) and using magic (the flood) in the same way. That is my opinion. :)

Thorin

01-23-2002, 07:50 PM

:)

Thank you, Grond...

Just for the record, I refused to give Greenwood any explanation due to the "colorful" private message he sent me, not because I had no explanation...I did mention that I would be willing to formulate an answer for anyone else. His lack of telling the whole story shows his unwillingness to be truthful to his fellow forum members at someone's else's expense.

Though Grond has explained it quite well why PJ's Arwen doesn't belong in Tolkien's world, I will add this...

Despite whether or not Luthien was active in warfare of some kind or another only adds credibility that Tolkien wrote his characters the way he did and had good reason for it. He wrote Luthien in an active role....He did not write Arwen that way. Whether or not Arwen COULD have done such a thing is a mute and foolish point to argue...The fact is is that she DID not because Tolkien wrote her a certain way...Any arguements to support such a distortion does not come from Tolkien, but from people's desire to justify the movie so badly, that they sacrifice Tolkien's story.

Many of you can justify it all you want, but the fact is (again) that it doesn't belong, nor was it intended, nor is it characteristic of Tolkien's Arwen....It's plain and simple to see, folks. As plain to see as Christ not being impressed at his potrayal of having or imagining some sort of illicit affair with Mary Magdalene in "Last Temptation of Christ."

Oh, wait a minute...How could I possibly KNOW what Jesus thought??? I guess the Bible and common theological sense is not good enough...Just like Arwen's portrayal in the book and Tolkien's own statements aren't enough either.:rolleyes:

Strider97

01-23-2002, 07:57 PM

Grond

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that Galadriel was involved in a few skirmishes protecting territoriy near Lorien during the War of the Rings. I believe this is from the HoME of Lost Tales. Elven Queens or Princesses most assuredly would take up arms if necessary. However it is more likely that the weapon would have been a bow rather then a sword. Also everyone please remember that the Arwen in the movie seems to be a condensation of all of Elronds children Arwen, Glorifindle, Elrohir and Elladan. As far as being anti-Tolkien there is a quote in the book I believe from Gandalf to Pippin concerning the Dark Lord regaining the ring and that all people will meet their doom at their appointed place. Sorry I am at work and w/o references. Tolkien while focused on the more Norse and Celtic masculine heros paid tribute to the Druids with Luthien, Galadriel and even Ewoyn.

I believe that Tolkien's intent was for Arwen to display the loss that occurs as the Third Age ends and the time of man begins. She was not intended to be the warrior princess. The romance of her decision and the bitterness of her parting with Elrond demonstrates the loss of a time and place changed by events and the sacrifices all had to make. Much as what happened to Tolkien's England during and before World War I and the industrialization that occurred. Many books to movies see a condensation of characters. I believe that if we can find in the movie's Arwen charater qualities of all of the children of Elrond we will have to find that PJ was true to the spirit of the characters.

Grond

01-23-2002, 08:18 PM

And that is why we all have opinions.

First I disagree with part of your response Greenwood. Arwen would have been more in character (not in book) had she met Frodo at the Fords and called the River up. Her little escapade with the sword and Aragorn was out of character, as was her wild ride and personal encounter with the Wraiths.

Secondly, I have never argued that a female warrior is out of character in Tolkien's works. As a matter of fact, I have vehemently argued that he had a heroine ready made in Eowyn. I have and will continue to argue that there are no instance of Female Elf Warriors. Sorry, but it isn't in the books. The Book of Lost Tale Part 1 and Part 2 are completely unrelated to this argument as these were the author's earliest attempts to create a Mythology for England. He refined these works for over 50 years after the Lost Tales were first written and no such story exists in the Sil or in the Appendix to LotR. Also, according to Greenwood they can't be taken as authoritative at all. I won't argue however, that if threatened with being overrun that every Elf in the Forest both male and female would pick up some weapon and fight.

What I said was that the behavior was "out of character" not beyond possibility. I think that the characterization of Arwen is out of character and close to being out of the realm of possibility from the Author's point of view. But he ain't here to defend himself, so Thorin and I and a few others simply attempt to defend what we think he would do. We can't be certain in our convictions but that doesn't mean we can't be convicted.

As for you, Stider97. Your arguments are sound. It is logical that when attacked, both male and female Elves would defend their homes and families. I don't doubt that if Tolkien wrote a chapter in LotR about an attack on Imladris that every Elf would take up arms. My point is that this behavior appears out of character in the works of JRRT. It just isn't there. You have great and heroic heroines but they don't have to draw a sword or "physically" rescue a Hobbit to be a heroine. Heck, Arwen gave Frodo her necklace which comforted him while at the Shire and then gave him her spot on the ship to Aman. That's being plenty heroic to me.

I'll end. But surely from my post, you can see the thought process behind the argument. It is logical, concise and I believe correct. Disagree you may, but knocking arguments in my logic you can't. Touche! lol:)

Greenwood

01-23-2002, 09:20 PM

Grond

I repeat, never have I said that the movie Arwen is the book Arwen. Also, never have I said that you claimed a female warrior was out of character for Tolkien, but others most definitely have. As for my views about Tolkien's posthumously published work they have to do with the fact that one must treat them differently than material published in Tolkien's lifetime. If someone says that Tolkien never, ever thought X, it is perfectly valid to give examples from all available materials to show that he did at some point think X. If the argument were did he ever publicly state X, than the number of times he may have said X in work unpublished during his lifetime would be irrelevant.

There is a vast world of difference between expressing your opinion about something and even saying what you think Tolkien's opinion might be, in your opinion, and Thorin's categorical declarations that he knows Tolkien's thoughts, without any qualification, and that anyone who has the temerity to have a different opinion is not a Tolkien fan. Thorin is now going to the, in my opinion, blasphemous extreme of claiming to know the Lord's own thoughts. It is impossible to have any sort of meaningful discussion or debate with someone who claims some sort of mystical power to divine the actual thoughts of dead people and God him/her self. In MY opinion, Tolkien, as a writer and devout Catholic, would be far more horrified by Thorin's attitudes than anything that was done to his work in PJ's adapting it to the screen.

Grond, you are well aware from both my public and private posts that I respect your intellect and your opinions, even when I disagree with your opinions.

Thorin is also well aware, from private posts, of my view of his abilities. As long as Thorin is stating things for the "record" I will quote his declaration to me from his private message: "I refuse to justify my Arwen anti-Tolkien comment to you, Foe-Hammer/ markrob clone...If anyone else wants to know, I will drum up an explanation, though it never would satisfy you....". I freely admit to "colorful" language in my private message to him. I was under the impression that the use of "colorful" language was decidedly frowned upon on this Forum, as are personal attacks. Any such "colorful" language was to be restricted to private messages. This I have done. My statement: "Thorin has already told me in a private message that he will not take up the challenge of defending his statement" was entirely factual. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to draw their own conclusions when another refuses to publicly defend their public statements when challenged to do so. Thorin has publicly questioned my honesty, which any reasonable person would take as a public attack. I have not responded in kind, but instead will merely consider the source of the attack. If he continues to publicly defame me, I will report it to the moderators under the three strikes rule. If he wishs to question my honesty, legitimacy or character he is free to do so in a private message.