Which Versions Better?(Flight to the Ford)

[Ecthelion]

Which Version Of Flight to The Ford do you think is better?

1.Movie with Arwen

2.Book with Glorfindel

[Ecthelion]

If anyone views this thread can you at least vote?

THX!:p

[baraka]

The book with Glorfindel is better. In that version you saw the real power of a Light Elf. He battled balrogs and stood with the nazgul. There are people who think that he is an insignificant character but he is Glorfindel.

[Harad]

The movie with Arwen is at least as good. Arwen is a better character than Glorfindel. Glorfindel was too strong for LOTR--he should have stayed in The Silmarillion.

After Frodo is struck by the Morgul Blade one could argue that its unrealistic to have him do all that he did in the book. The movie makes the Morgul blade more debilitating. The movie also makes the Glowing Elf perform Healing and High Cunning, rather than mere Power that Glorfindel depicts. Everytime I see Arwen, I like her movie character more. She Heals (or at least delays the sickness) and Cunningly tricks the Nazgul into the River so they can be unhorsed.

And its better than Bakshi's version because in that, Frodo and horse, inexplicably fall down, and even stranger, get up again, none the worse for wear.

[baraka]

Originally posted by Harad
Arwen is a better character than Glorfindel. Glorfindel was too strong for LOTR--he should have stayed in The Silmarillion.

After Frodo is struck by the Morgul Blade one could argue that its unrealistic to have him do all that he did in the book. The movie makes the Morgul blade more debilitating. The movie also makes the Glowing Elf perform Healing and High Cunning, rather than mere Power that Glorfindel depicts. Everytime I see Arwen, I like her movie character more. She Heals (or at least delays the sickness) and Cunningly tricks the Nazgul into the River so they can be unhorsed.


Arwen is not a better character than Glorfindel. Elrond had a reason to send Glor to search for the Hobbits because there were few elves who could stand against the nine. Would you have chosen your daugther to find and deliver Frodo to Rivendell instead of a High Elf who defeated a balrog. Glorfindel also delayed the sickness of Frodo in the book.

I don´t think it is unrealistic that Frodo did all that he did in the book, it was to show us that he was chosen to be a ring bearer because he had certain qualities that even the wise do not. (I know that he was not officialy the ring bearer after Rivendell).

[Harad]

Arwen is not a better character than Glorfindel. Elrond had a reason to send Glor to search for the Hobbits because there were few elves who could stand against the nine. Would you have chosen your daugther to find and deliver Frodo to Rivendell instead of a High Elf who defeated a balrog.

Arwen is a character that fits into LOTR while Glorfindel does not. How else to explain why Glorfindel doesnt do another thing after the Council of Rivendell.

Arwen was searching for Aragorn her betrothed in the movie as well. She was in the tradition of Luthien who thought for herself and was willing to go against her father's wishes if she thought she was right. She was an excellent choice as a healer, offsetting the malice of the Nazgul with goo will, not fighting power of a High Elf from the First Age.

Frodo survived for several days in the book after Weathertop, then was involved in a vigorous horse chase on his own, then defied the Nazgul. Perhaps movie audiences would have discounted the effect of the Morgul blade or thought that Frodo was a superhobbit, if they did not have all the background available in the book.

[Tar-Palantir]

I dunno, Harad. I don't think Frodo did all that much out of the ordinary in the book from Weathertop to the Ford. Strider basically flung him across good ol' Bill the pony until Glorfindel showed up. As to the race to the Ford, that was all horse, baby. All Frodo did was hang on for dear life.

I don't mind the movie version of the flight, but liked the book's version better, i.e. Frodo being alone and facing the Nazgul.

[Harad]

Mebbe. Not being a horse rider my own self, dunno how tough it would be... Of course it was an Elven horse who wouldnt let his rider fall, so...

[baraka]

Arwen is a character that fits into LOTR while Glorfindel does not. How else to explain why Glorfindel doesnt do another thing after the Council of Rivendell.


Well, obviously JRRT thought that putting Glorfindel in that part of the book for some reason. To me Arwen is the one that not belong in that part of FOTR. The movie didn´t get to you, i hope?

But Harad, you did not answer the question, if you were Elrond, would you send Arwen of Glorfindel to search for the party?

[Harad]

If there was a Glorfindel I would shirley send him. And I wouldnt ignore him when the Quest began neither. And I wouldnt ignore him for the rest of the War of The Ring neither. Tell me what DID Glorfindel do in those perilous times after the CoE?

[daisy]

But he must have been a superhobbit, compared to other normal hobbits...
Anyway, what I really hated about the Flight to the Ford was the bobbing, " Kiss Me Kathy" life size doll that was used for most of the shots instead of the actual Elijah-Frodo. I understand it would have been difficult to do the size thing with both Liv and ELijah on the horse but c'mon! Kiss Me Kathy??

I liked the book better, but for the purposes of cinema, the new Flight to the Ford makes more sense to watch and carry through a character who will be around for awhile.

Where is Grond when you need him?:)

[Snaga]

I voted for the film version, because I knew Harad would need the votes! I loved them both, in different ways. But you didn't give us a 'sitting on the fence' option!

I seem to be quite uncommon in believing the film only has to work as a film to be justified. The book is still there unaffected, so nothing is lost. And the flight to the ford scene in the film is superb. 'One of the greatest horse chases ever filmed' or something similar, one critic said.

[ssgrif]

2 votes for Arwen? I'm in shock...!

where are all the purists? why arent they demanding the moderator to amend the Poll results?

;)

[Grond]

Hey, at this point it is 10 - 1 in favor of the book. I don't need to amend the results. That is an overwhelming victory for the book and this poll is in the movie forum. :)

[Ancalagon]

I really liked the scene with Arwen, especially when she fought with the Black Rider guys on her steed. And like the bit where she calls the water to kill them guys and then the bit where she gives Frodo some of her Elven magic to keep him alive. Arwen rocks, she is like soooooo kewl!

[Harad]

I really liked the scene with Glorfindel where he glows and chases the Nazgul into the river. Then I like when he went on vacation for the rest of the LOTR.

[Grond]

Anc the Black...you are so demented. :)

[Grond]

Originally posted by Harad
I really liked the scene with Glorfindel where he glows and chases the Nazgul into the river. Then I like when he went on vacation for the rest of the LOTR. Just think, when the DVD comes out you can burn the book and just watch the movie over and over and over...

[Harad]

I hope YOU wont burn the book just because you cant tell me what weapon Aragorn used when he traveled from Rivendell to Bree and back.

I'm allowed to keep my copy of each.

[Grond]

But it is well known that he carried Grond the Hammer at his side during the entire trip. He just forgot to tell us about it. :)

[tasar]

Well, I just voted for the movie and I must say that it was one of my favourite scenes. It really made my blood circulate. I don't think it makes much difference wether Arwen of Glorfindel comes to rescue, because what was important was that there was an elf who didn't fare the ringwrights.
Perhaps the scene in the movie was so exciting because Arwen seemed so fragile. I mean - what could've happened if the wrights had cought them.

[Grond]

Originally posted by tasar
Well, I just voted for the movie and I must say that it was one of my favourite scenes. It really made my blood circulate. I don't think it makes much difference wether Arwen of Glorfindel comes to rescue, because what was important was that there was an elf who didn't fare the ringwrights.
Perhaps the scene in the movie was so exciting because Arwen seemed so fragile. I mean - what could've happened if the wrights had cought them. Tasar, does the Estonian version of The Lord of the Rings have Glorfindel carry Frodo to the Fords on horseback as Arwen did? My book shows that Glorfindel loaned Frodo a horse and it was FRODO that defied the Nazgul at the Fords. I just wondered if yours is different?

[ReadWryt]

I don't think that the whole Glorfindel thing is the point, you forget the whole Arwen as the sword wielding bint spitting challenges to the most horrifying creatures she has ever seen, making the flood that otherwise was atributed to her father and then doing that whole scene that looked like maybe she resurected Frodo from the dead while Frodo was totally out of it instead of mustering the courage to oppose the Nazgul alone as he did in the book.

I found that this scene made MY blood circulate as well, but not in a good way at all. It's liberties with the story like these that make me question why Jackson even bothered to pretend to be making The Lord of the Rings in the first place instead of just writing his own original story altogether. He and his wife seem to think that they are superior writers to Tolkien where story telling is concerned, why not start from scratch instead of cramming invented garbage into the skeleton of a great story for no other reason then to cash in on the popularity of the Title and Author....?

[Grond]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
...for no other reason then to cash in on the popularity of the Title and Author....? That IS the reason.:)

[tasar]

Originally posted by Grond
Tasar, does the Estonian version of The Lord of the Rings have Glorfindel carry Frodo to the Fords on horseback as Arwen did? My book shows that Glorfindel loaned Frodo a horse and it was FRODO that defied the Nazgul at the Fords. I just wondered if yours is different?

no... I think the Estonian translation is pretty accurate. But I don't think that in the book Glorfindel is afraid of the black riders. Wasn't it said something about everybody else looking like shadows to Frodo and Glorfindel glowing or something. And he DID save Frodo, didn't he.
Anyway, PJ simply took Glorfindel, turned him into woman and gave him(her) some extra powers( the river-trick was almost too easy for Arwen in the movie). For me it really doesn't make any difference if it's A or G , Arwen is simply more beautiful.

[Grond]

Originally posted by tasar
no... I think the Estonian translation is pretty accurate. But I don't think that in the book Glorfindel is afraid of the black riders. Wasn't it said something about everybody else looking like shadows to Frodo and Glorfindel glowing or something. And he DID save Frodo, didn't he.
Anyway, PJ simply took Glorfindel, turned him into woman and gave him(her) some extra powers( the river-trick was almost too easy for Arwen in the movie). For me it really doesn't make any difference if it's A or G , Arwen is simply more beautiful. In that case tasar, you have totally missed my point. In the book, Glorfindel did not rescue Frodo at the Fords of Bruinen... he simply loaned Frodo his horse. Frodo outran the Nazgul alone and defied them alone at the Fords. He had no help from anyone. It was he who stood up in the saddle and said, "Go back! Go back to the Land of Mordor, and follow me no more!" He later states, "By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall have neither the Ring nor me!" That defiance was Frodo's... not Glorfindel's and certainly not Arwen's. To make matters worse, the movie then portrays Arwen literally breathing life back into Frodo.

In case you forgot the flow of the book.
1) Glorfindel finds Aragorn and Hobbits and renders healing to ease Frodo's wound.
2) Glorfindel places Frodo on Asfaloth.
3) Glorfindel directs Asfaloth to the Ford.
4) After crossing the river, Frodo stops and defies Nazgul on his own.
5) Three of the nine Nazgul trot into stream.
6) Frodo's sword is broken and he is struck dumb by Lord of the Nazgul
7) Bruinen is unleashed by Elrond (with Gandalf adding horses and riders to the waves) and washes away the three riders in the river.
8) Glorfindel, in all his Elfin Glory along with Aragorn and Hobbits bearing torches drive the six remaining Nazgul into the flood.
9) Elrond heals Frodo in Rivendell by extracting the piece of the Morgul Blace lodged in Frodo's shoulder which is working it's way towards his heart.

No Arwen anywhere in that long sequence of events and this Tolkien fan resents the fact that in the movie so much was taken from others and bestowed upon fair Arwen.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by tasar
Anyway, PJ simply took Glorfindel, turned him into woman and gave him(her) some extra powers( the river-trick was almost too easy for Arwen in the movie). For me it really doesn't make any difference if it's A or G , Arwen is simply more beautiful.

So why not Galadriel or Eowyn? Apparently anything goes. Galadriel might as well be there for all the non-Tolkien public know. Who cares about accuracy when claiming to make a true rendition of an epic? Get the prettiest actor whether she belongs in the scene or not!

The fact is, tasar,is that Arwen was not at the Ford, nor was she replacing Glorfindel. She was an added character given actions that were not in character (Luthien or not, FADs), and doing things that stole the thunder from other characters....JRR's methods and intentions were distorted and taken away to be substituted by Jackson's inventions.....

It was wrong. Period.

[tasar]

Grond, I guess we have both missed each others points. I agree with what you said though. That Frodo defied the nazgul alone.

But STILL I think PJ simply gave Glorfindel's part to Arwen. And though SOME people seem to dislike it.... well, I don't mind.

[Grond]

Originally posted by tasar
Grond, I guess we have both missed each others points. I agree with what you said though. That Frodo defied the nazgul alone.

But STILL I think PJ simply gave Glorfindel's part to Arwen. And though SOME people seem to dislike it.... well, I don't mind. tasar, you can't agree with me and disagree with me in the same sentence. It is totally uncivilized. I'm sure what you mean to say is that PJ gave a lot more than just Glorfindel's part to Arwen. I spent my entire prior post pointing out that it was not just Glorfindel's role she stole. She also stole Frodo's, Elrond's and Gandalf's. :(

[tasar]

Originally posted by Grond
tasar, you can't agree with me and disagree with me in the same sentence. It is totally uncivilized. I'm sure what you mean to say is that PJ gave a lot more than just Glorfindel's part to Arwen. I spent my entire prior post pointing out that it was not just Glorfindel's role she stole. She also stole Frodo's, Elrond's and Gandalf's. :(

So what?
PJ made a movie BASED on the book, not following every sentence. And I don't blame him for it. If I would've directed it I probably had done some changes as well and it's too much to even hope that everybody would like them.
As for Arwen stealing other's parts, I'm sure that at least Frodo will make everything up in the next two movies. I doubt seriously if Arwen will carry him to the Cracks of Doom and hey, maybe bite his finger off as well (not a nice picture, not at all).

[elfprincess]

Well, I think that using Arwen in that scene instead of Glorfindel kinda made Frodo look like a pansy. lol I dunno.....maybe it's just me. :P

[ReadWryt]

Grond, I guess we have both missed each others points. I agree with what you said though. That Frodo defied the nazgul alone.

But STILL I think PJ simply gave Glorfindel's part to Arwen. And though SOME people seem to dislike it.... well, I don't mind.



Were it simply a matter of Arwen ariving, sticking Frodo on her horse and sending him across the Ford, and then appearing illuminated across the water while Frodo defied the Nazgul you would not only be accurate, but perhaps have a point. Jackson changes aspects of 13 different characters the way he shot this, not just Glorfindel, and then people wonder why the "ignorant hate filled purists" have a problem with the scene...ignorant of the fact that a man claiming that he wouldn't make "major changes" in the characters has, in less then 5 minutes of film time, altered 13 different individuals from the story...

[Beleg Strongbow]

The book fo sure.

[tasar]

As I've already said many things that were supposed to illustrate my liking of the 'flight to the ford scene' in the movie, I will simply add that as a whole (as much I did enjoy the film) I liked and always will like the book better. Tolkien is my personal hero.

[Gamil Zirak]

I prefered the book version better. If they wanted to make Liv Tyler into some super chick, she should have been Eowyn and she could have killed the chief Nazgul. I've heard a lot of people saying that PJ was trying to incorporate "feminism" into the book. Well, a female in the book killed the leader of Sauron's army and maybe even the highest in power next to Suaron (it's debatable with Durin's Bain who was more powerful).

[Lord Snotty]

even though some of you may have my head for a soccer ball if i say this, but i thought Arwen in the movie was better for numourous reasons

[Gamil Zirak]

Lord Snotty - What are your reasons? I'll wait on using your head as a soccer ball until you give your reasons. :D

[Thorin]

quote from Lord Snotty:
"i got inspired to read the book by seeing the Lord of the Rings action figure ads."


This might explain why you have no problems with the movie's Arwen and why you liked it better. When you've read the book as long as some of us here have, it and it's characters become almost a part of you. You've internalized the characters and the history of ME so much that any distortion as dramatic as the one in the movie is very hard to swallow never mind justify....But you are entitled to your opinion.

Tolkien knew what he was doing when he created Arwen the way he did. ReadWryt is correct. If they wanted the audience to get more familiar with Arwen, then they could have just had her replace Glorfindel....i.e. just thrown Frodo on the horse and let events carry it out the way the book did....it was much better, why change it? Or they could have created scenes not in the book with Arwen in them that would have been truer to her character.

[Lord Snotty]

let me recap... in said action figure ads, i did'nt have a clue what they were talking about, the ads were out long before the movie came out, and, I READ THE BOOK BEFORE THE MOVIE! and i was way past the Glorfindel part when it did come out.... so there :p and also, the numourous reasons is that i have aspergus, aspergus = low imagination, low imagination = have to rely on imagining things i've seen, or it won't work = have to rely on imagining things i've seen means imagining Saruman as Sean Connery in white robes, Gandalf as that Black Mage from Final Fantasy = that means i like the movie better, yes, it's pathetic, but oh well :D and i still have grown attached to the characters, escpecially Gimli! W00T! GIMLI ROCKS! *ahem* well, you are missing my point, uh, *thinking* I HEARD ARWEN IS GONNA REPLACE EOWYN! *runs away waiting for the explosion*

[I.am.Smeagol]

Nah, Eowyn is most certainly in TTT and is some warrior woman thing, but there was that scene in the preview where it shows Arwen in a deathlike state. Hmm, maybe she does replace Eowyn by killing the Black Rider, but that would be beyond sac religious for PJ to do. Not to mention it would ruin the entire story and Eowyn's character.

I personally think Glorfindel helped tie LotR in with The Sil, not to mention his character is more suited to that role and it makes much more sense for him to be out and about. I agree with RW that if they wanted to incorporate a major female role Arwen should have just done what Glordindel did and set Frodo off on her horse.

As one who read LotR after watching the movie (I read the Hobbit a while ago), I can say I like the books much more, they make so much more sense and are much more flowing.

[tasar]

Originally posted by I.am.Smeagol
I can say I like the books much more, they make so much more sense and are much more flowing.

That is so true!

[Narya]

Both version were good.

The Movie version was good because:

1) For the non-readers it made that particular scene more understandable because too many powerful characters in one scene will confuse someone who is introduced to Tolkien's world for the first time. I have proven this since I saw the film for the first time with someone who has never heard of Tolkien. The crossing of the ford with Arwen made it easier to comprehend.
2)It has introduced Liv Tyler's character better as she would be playing a vital role on the succeeding films.
3)It was also a huge budget cut, since obviously Glorfindel would have been casted as another superstar (probably Leonardo DiCaprio if I were to choose)

The Book Version is also good:

1)unadulterated, original ideas are always the best. Tolkien wrote that anticipating a crowd of Fantasy lovers. Plus it made a good introduction to the lives of Elves (High Elves) and made a good story point for the Sil, where Glorfindel is more familiar.

There that is my answer.

[Elias]

The book version with Glorfindel is better. I didn't know that Arwen would replace Glorfindel in the movie until I saw it (I was really surprised).

[Talimon]

Were the movie to follow the book strictly, and have Frodo just thrown on the horse, then yes, it might be good. But if we are talking about just having Glorfindel ride in the place of Arwen, then no, I think Arwen is much better.

Glorfindel is great in the book. But movie-wise, the tension works much better having it be Arwen. Plus, it would be really lame to just have Arwen introduced in Rivendell. It's a great way to introduce her by having her take Frodo. I think this will become more clear with the next two movies, where her charachter will be expanded.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Talimon
Were the movie to follow the book strictly, and have Frodo just thrown on the horse, then yes, it might be good. But if we are talking about just having Glorfindel ride in the place of Arwen, then no, I think Arwen is much better.

Glorfindel is great in the book. But movie-wise, the tension works much better having it be Arwen. Plus, it would be really lame to just have Arwen introduced in Rivendell. It's a great way to introduce her by having her take Frodo. I think this will become more clear with the next two movies, where her charachter will be expanded. Errr. Ummm. And where would this expanded characterization come from??? I don't seem to remember Arwen having any significant parts until The Return of the King. I think I remember Eowyn being the heroine in the tales... but I could be wrong. I guess PJ is just a better writer than JRRT. Is that what you're saying Talimon?

[Eomer Dinmention]

Hard choice

I must say Arwen was really HOT in the movie, I'm like OMG shes beautiful lol

But then again, you have the Great Elf Lord Glorfindel,To my knowledge didn't he slay like alot of Balrogs?

[Talimon]

Please don't be so naive, Grond. Obviously PJ is going to be expanding Arwen's role, and obviously it's not going to be from the book. I'm not saying it's better then the book, but it's going to be there. You really didn't think Arwen would just be introduced in FotR and then be left on the backburner until RotK? Obviously she'll play a role in the TTT. I doubt it will be a significant one, but she will be there.

[wonko]

the movie was pretty cool but I liked the book a ton more... glorfindel is a better character than arwen though i admit it would be kind of strange introducing him in such a crucial scene for such a brief amount of time and then casting him aside

[ReadWryt]

Glorfindel dissapeared, the Nine Nazgul did not scare Arwen in the least, which diminished their gut wrenching, fear inspiring nature...the flood was NOT commanded by Elrond but instead was caused by incantation, something no elves in LotR ever do...Frodo was denied the oportunity to show his bravery as he stood up against the Nazgul and Sauron, demonstrating the final resolve and proving to himself and everyone else that he would be CAPABLE of taking the Ring to Mount Doom, Arwen was turned into some Warrior Elven Witch who may or may not have the ability to bring Hobbits back to life...I would say that once you have changed the character of that many figures from the story you have done more then enough damage to the story and should take a break!

[tasar]

Wow!

[Talimon]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
I would say that once you have changed the character of that many figures from the story you have done more then enough damage to the story and should take a break!

Why bother...

[Captain Sparky]

Someone in a black robe: "Give up the halfling, she-Elf."

OR

A Nazgul as he really is: "Come back. To Mordor we will take you."

Which do you find more frightening?

As for the Elf lord revealed in all his glory, is that what PJ was
trying to show us when Galadriel stuck her fork in the toaster?

[Thorin]

"Give up the halfling, she-Elf."

Snort! "She-Elf???" BWHAAAAHAAAAAHA!!!! That line is almost as cheesy as:

"Let's go hunt some orc!"
"Nobody tosses a dwarf!"
"I'd rather die then see the ring on an elf's finger!"

And the all time winner:

"If you want him, come and claim him!"

Done, of course, by that sword-wielding, spell casting, Nazgul defying, Aragorn embarassing, Dunadain-sneaking up upon, Frodo cuddling, Ring-bearer healing, true-to-Tolkien She Elf:

ARWEN!!!!! YAAAAAAAAAAYY!!!!! Here to save the day!!!!

Let her come to Helm's Deep where she belongs!! Kick some butt, Arwen!!!!

[Captain Sparky]

Originally posted by Thorin


Snort! "She-Elf???" BWHAAAAHAAAAAHA!!!! That line is almost as cheesy as:

"Let's go hunt some orc!"


Cheesy it may be, but it is in the film nevertheless.

Thank you, Mr Jackon. Thank you for taking the last centuries greatest work of literature and turning it into a 1950's B-movie.

[Gamil Zirak]

Originally posted by Captain Sparky
Which do you find more frightening?

Does it really matter wich one is more frightening? All that matters is that it was a major deviation from the book. You can call me a purist all you want, but it won't change my point of view. When you make a major change to a literary masterpiece in making a movie, you better have a good reason. What does PJ say? I'm staying true to Tolkien. He's so full of ****.

[Captain Sparky]

Originally posted by Gamil Zirak


Does it really matter wich one is more frightening? All that matters is that it was a major deviation from the book.

I think it does matter. The scene in the book was powerful because in was terrifying. The scene in the movie made me laugh.

Originally posted by Gamil Zirak


You can call me a purist all you want, but it won't change my point of view. When you make a major change to a literary masterpiece in making a movie, you better have a good reason. What does PJ say? I'm staying true to Tolkien. He's so full of ****.

I'm a purist myself. Although I can except changing the story to adapt it to a different medium, PJ went far beyond it. He ripped out the story's sole, leaving us with a cheap action-flick.

[Gamil Zirak]

My apologies Captain Sparky. I thought you were saying that the movie was more frightening. Just a misunderstanding on my part.

[Talimon]

Thank you, Mr Jackon. Thank you for taking the last centuries greatest work of literature and turning it into a 1950's B-movie.

I hope you enjoy bathing in all this criticism. To call this movie a "1950's B-movie" is to essentially call over 95% of the movies ever released 1950 B-movies. I dare you to go watch the original Star Wars movie and list all the cheesy parts you can find, by that standard. The cheesiest line is "Let's hunt some orc", and when you compare this to just about any other movie out there, it's pales in comparison.

I'm a purist myself. Although I can except changing the story to adapt it to a different medium, PJ went far beyond it. He ripped out the story's sole, leaving us with a cheap action-flick.

You have nothing concrete to back this up. If you think having Arwen instead of Glorfindel ripps out the stories "sole", then your idea of what the story's about must be very distorted.


Does it really matter wich one is more frightening? All that matters is that it was a major deviation from the book. You can call me a purist all you want, but it won't change my point of view. When you make a major change to a literary masterpiece in making a movie, you better have a good reason. What does PJ say? I'm staying true to Tolkien. He's so full of ****.

This quote right here proves one of two things. One, you have absolutely no idea what LotR is even about, or two, you have no idea what PJ's goal is. Actually, it seems to me like both. "All that matters is that it was a major deviation from the book". This proves that you could less for Tolkien themes then for the names of his charachters. Peter Jackson's goal wasn't to stay as true to the books as possible. I can garauntee he's read the book more times then both of us combined. He knows quite well what the books about. He knows all the charachters names. He knows all the events. You don't need to try and school him on Tolkien. His aim is to make 3 good movies. Movies that people who have and haven't read the book will enjoy. He never said he was staying as true to Tolkien as possible. Had that been his goal, sure, he could have easily done it, but his movie would be so quickly forgotten in the ashes of time that it wouldn't even matter. PJ has done something incredible, in that he's made a fantasy film that's 3 hours long and doesn't get boring or loose it's audience. How many 3 hour films do that to begin with, let alone fantasy films? And on top of that, he's included every major theme from the book, not to mention many of the most important lines. He's made a movie that people will watch 10 years from now and enjoy. He's made a movie that's gotten people who haven't read Tolkien to go read. Can a Tolkien fan ask for anything more? Yes, he can, and he's gotten it. A good movie in the spirit of JRR Tolkien.

[tasar]

As I have nothing to say really after this long but still interesting post then I will simply say: I like what you said, Talimon.

[Gamil Zirak]

Originally posted by Talimon
This quote right here proves one of two things. One, you have absolutely no idea what LotR is even about, or two, you have no idea what PJ's goal is.

Don't accuse me of not knowing anything about the book or what PJ's goals were. Do you even know me or anything about me? Do you even know that I enjoyed the movie and can't wait for it to come out on DVD? I'm not even questioning PJ's knowledge of Tolkien's works.

I understand that you can't make a movie exactly like the a book. It's practicly impossible unless you have a narrator reading the parts that can't be acted out or shown. However, PJ made a major change to the book. If PJ wanted Arwen to show up instead of Glorfindel, that's fine by me. However, she took his role and then some. She takes away from Frodo's strugle with the Nazgul and the ring. Although you don't think I understand the themes of LoTR, I'm pretty sure that Frodo strugling with the power of the ring is one of them. This foreshadows his strugles later on in the story and it also shows his strength as a ring bearer. Prove to me that that didn't change a theme in the movie.

[Talimon]

I agree that that's a theme that was changed. If that's what your complaining about, then make sure you say it specifically. What you said before said nothing of Frodo's struggle, and as such I can only assume you are talking about the cutting of Glorfindel (which in my opinion doesn't change any of the books themes). More to the point, the fact that Arwen was included didn't have to stop Frodo from opposing the Nazgul. As such, what you are really critiquing is PJ's adaptation of Frodo's charachter, not Arwen at all.

That being said, I can agree completely regarding Frodo's characther. That's my chief complaint in regards to the adaptation. I felt that both PJ's Frodo and Elijah Wood's Frodo defered in many aspects from the books Frodo. This can be said of Arwen as well, but Arwen isn't a major charachter so that doesn't bother me. But when the main charachter is changed pretty dramatically, that does matter. I think you are misdirecting your frustration with the Arwen scene at the wrong element. It's Frodo that's bothering you, not Arwen per se.

[Gamil Zirak]

Glad we're in agreement with that. I think that is the complaint of most people when it comes to Arwen. Although, I don't agree with her calling the flood or standing up to the Nazgul. She has no real character in the book and it should stay that way. She should be the fair elven princes she is in the book, not the sword wielding warior PJ wants her to be.

[ReadWryt]

Arwen IS a major character...at least as major as Elrond because she has ALMOST AS MANY LINES AND AS MUCH SCREEN TIME. Of course I'm talking about the Movie Arwen, not the Book Arwen...

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Gamil Zirak
I think that is the complaint of most people when it comes to Arwen.

Not this boy...Yes that bothers me, but I don't agree with her even BEING there! It was the way in which she "saved" Frodo, too. It was cheesy dialogue, unheard of bravado and total invention..She stole all the scenes and did more then Glorfindel ever did in the book...

Just sticking her into a scene where she doesn't even come close to being in the book frosts me to no end...If Arwen had been there in the book, and PJ had given her EXTRA things to do that were not in the book, I could have lived with it.....Sticking her where she never was, doing things she never does and saving the day like NO OTHER character in Tolkien's LoTR even did at any time is annoying to no end...

She did not replace any character, not even Glorfindel....She was given a fabricated, major role that took away from the characters that mattered....

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Gamil Zirak
Glad we're in agreement with that. I think that is the complaint of most people when it comes to Arwen. Although, I don't agree with her calling the flood or standing up to the Nazgul. She has no real character in the book and it should stay that way. She should be the fair elven princes she is in the book, not the sword wielding warior PJ wants her to be.

I completely disagree. Are you saying that having her marry Aragorn at the end without any explanation makes sense? When reading the book it feels random, until you read the Apendices.

In my opinion she never stood up to the riders. If she was planning on standing up to them, it wouldn't make sense for her to only do it at the ford. Look at her face right after she says "come and claim him!". She quickly realizes she has no chance in winning. I don't call that making her a warrior. We never see her fight, and I don't think we're led to believe that she could fight. I got the impression that she was trying to act tough but in reality couldn't.

[Gamil Zirak]

Originally posted by Talimon
I completely disagree. Are you saying that having her marry Aragorn at the end without any explanation makes sense? When reading the book it feels random, until you read the Apendices.

That's not what I am trying to say. They can easily introduce Arwen and who she is in Rivendell. In fact, that's the ideal place to do it.

[Theoden]

I think it is important to remember that the Movie was only three hours long... no time at all when you think about all the info that was put into the book. Let's face it, Tolkien just did a better job. But for what it is worth, I think it really gave a good introduction to Arwen as a character and I think it allowed those of us who hadn't read the books before we saw the movie to get to know her and what she was made of. Tolkien never really said much about Arwen, accept that she was beautiful and that she had courage (that is seen in that she is brave enough to leave her family and her future to become a mortal). So I think that for a movie, the way Jackson did it was great, but the book is far better.

[Talimon]

One thing you also have to remember is that the movie didn't try to give as much info as possible. I personally believe that had PJ chosen to he could have included more dialogue and details. But I think that the type of movie he wanted to created wouldn't have allowed that, and I'm just as happy that it's so. I'd love to see the actors talk more, but that would take away from the style of the movie. This movie is about so much more then just dialogue, and yet I find that all people can complain about is just that. Each line in the movie is meant to resonate and have some meaning. There aren't many throw-away lines. The lines here were written to be memorable, and they serve that purpose. Many of Tolkien's lines are memorable, but they are padded with a lot of extra stuff. That extra stuff is actually some of my favorite written dialogue ever, but I don't know if it would lend itself to film well, and I can only be thankful that the movie was made with many of the same memorable lines from the book.

[Theoden]

I think you are right about having to remember what kind of movie PJ was trying to put out. good point

[Leto]

I know this thread is almost a month old...but what sort of poll is this, seriously? *lol* I can't believe ANYONE would vote for the movie above the books. That is one of the most memorable parts from the FOTR, the end of book one. "Fly! Fly! The Enemy is upon us!"

And did I see someone write "it wasn't realistic" that Frodo lasted so long with the morgul knife, in the book? Ummm...it is Tolkien's world, whatever he writes is what is 'realistic'. The movie was not 'realistic' by portaying Frodo as being so weak...he lasted for days with the wound, and was conscious the whole time.
When I saw that part of the movie, all I could do is shake my head sadly. It was terrible. I wouldn't even have a problem with Arwen taking Glorfindel's place, if she had remained in Glorfindel's place. But like someone else said...she also took Elrond's and Gandalf's place...and worst of all she took Frodo's place. We don't get the sense from the movie that Frodo is a courageous survivor in face of overwhelming odds...we see him get stabbed and immediately fall into a near-death feverish state, needing to be carried across the ford.

[Gamil Zirak]

I would assume that the people that voted for the movie version watched the movie before they read the book. It's just an assumption though.

[Talimon]

By the way, in case people are reffering to me when they say "people", I voted for the book. I'm by no means saying the movie does it better, but just trying to point out where it comes from.

[Leto]

:) I understand where the movie comes from, why the changes were made. But I don't have to like it, darn it! *lol* It's the best LOTR movie yet (of two). A great movie, standing high among other hollywood movies. It is just a shame that it has to give in to the 'hollywood formula', instead of being an accurate representation of the books.

[Talimon]

"Hollywood formula"?

This movie is about as far from Hollywood as an action/adventure movie comes. It's 3 hours, it's fantasy, it has less then 15 minutes combined of females (and none of those show any skin), it's ending is about as anti-cliche as possible, it's main themes are about corruption and friendship, and it's main element is NOT action. More to the point, unlike Hollywood films it doesn't bank on any particular aspect: it's perfectly balanced. The acting doesn't overtake the cinematography, which doesn't overtake the special effects, which doesn't overtake the plot, which doesn't overtake etc. etc. A Hollywood movie would bank on any one of these, and ussually do a half-assed job on the rest.

And maybe the fact that the production didn't cut any corners has something to do with it as well. Every piece of armour was actually made, the writing is all real, the languages are spoken correctly.

You can say the movie isn't completely true to Tolkien, but you can't really say it's a formula. That's one of the great things about it: it's so different from other movies out there.

[Leto]

The 'hollywood formula' I am referring to must be responsible for the character change in Arwen for the film. What else could be responsible for those foolish changes? Apparently he felt a stronger female lead, with romantic interest for one of the main characters, was necesary for FOTR, since in the books, a female character doesn't have a major (action) role until Two Towers, with Eowyn...and she doesn't do anything really until Return of the King. So he felt he needed to play up the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen, by making Arwen more important...why would he feel he needed to do this, unless it was to appease the hollywood audience, who expect such things? If the rest of the movie was so far from the Hollywood standard, why concede on this point? When I say the hollywood standard, I don't mean the quality of the film, its writing and acting. There are some very good hollywood movies, and some bad ones. I mean that he obeyed a 'formula for success' that is prescribed by the American public. This is not bad, in of itself...but when it compromises Tolkien...

and if he truly believes he is making the story 'better', by making such changes...well, I don't think anyone can disagree that Tolkien is the only person who could have made LOTR 'better' than it already is.

[Talimon]

I honestly believe that the reasons for including Arwen have far less to do with any formula and more to do with making the tale more believeable and understandable to the audience. It just doesn't make sense to have Arwen show up in RotK out of nowhere and marry one of the central charachters. If PJ really wanted more female precense he would have beefed up Galadriels part as well. I don't think that's the issue. It's more in line with making Arwen and Aragorn's saga more understandable for the audience. Its obviously a change from Tolkien, but it doesn't seem to be for the reasons you list.

[Leto]

The task of expanding on her relationship with Aragorn...which I agree is good for the film...could have been completed in Rivendell, without having her steal Frodo's thunder. Explaining the relationship, so film viewers would understand why they get married in the end, is necessary. But he has created a character in Arwen that is not a part of the story. Why? "...making the tale more believeable and understandable to the audience." exactly...the audience, apparently, cannot believe that a man such as Aragorn is acting of his own stength and will in this quest...he needs the inspiration of Arwen to have the courage to claim his destiny. A PC, 'stronger' Arwen, rather than the passive background character she is in the story. Show the relationship, and give some of their back story, by all means. But this does not require the altering of their characters. He may have the right to do whatever he wants in his movies, and may have every good reason to write it his own way. He has to appease the film studio, make sure the movie is successful enough to make a profit, and have fun with his own interpretive vision. But all those factors detract from Tolkien's story. While it is a good movie, nothing can change the fact that parts of it are 'wrong' according to Tolkien, and no excuse can make it 'right'. Perhaps it was a necessary evil. But it is still an 'evil', and I don't have to like it, just because it has the name 'Lord if the Rings' attached :)

[Talimon]

If every change from Tolkien is wrong, then so be it. I rather it be "wrong" and entertaining rather then "right" and boring.

[Ecthelion]

This is my first thread *sob* and it's still here *sob* keep posting here have arguments and stuff *sob*. Oh yeah *sob* and keep voting.

[Gandalf_White]

I hated when Arwen came along. PJ ruined her. Glorfindel was way better.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

I need some more posts and this thread looks passionate.

I truly was unable to vote here, because there wasn't a choice of "liked both equally"

FOR THE BOOK:
Of course the book version was far more excellent and the slow rise in excitement as they trekked closer and closer to Rivendell, with the climactic 2 mile chase and run to the ford at the end. And Glorfindel was a breath of fresh air during their dark, rainy journey from Weathertop. And Frodo's resistance at the ford was great, and his blacking out at the last moment was great segue.

FOR THE MOVIE:
You have to admit that was a pretty thrilling horse chase, and Arwen makes more sense to me, since even in the book, Glorfindel was not a recurring character, yet there IS a need to have Arwen kept in.

AGAINST THE MOVIE:
I don't forgive the lack of mention that Gandalf made the White horse effect in the waves. And what the heck is all that crying Arwen is doing for FRODO when she thinks he is fading! I mean she barely just met him, so what is she crying about. Give me a break!

[Talimon]

Shamelessly ripping my arguments!!! ;)

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Hey, man, I was backing you up! (Only stingier with my words.)
;)
Sorry I didn't have time to read all your previous posts. I only had an hour so I skimmed.
SO. . . how did we vote, anyway, if we agree. I'll go back and register mine.

[ReadWryt]

Mindy,

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4511

[elf boy]

Although Glorfindel from the book was better, I can see the reasoning behind putting Arwen in the movie at that point. They had to have some way to let people know who Arwen was before she just appeared at the end since most of the history seems to have dissappeared from the movie due to time (at least that's my guess). In short: Glorfindel rocks, but they didn't want people watching the Return of the King saying "Who is Arwen??:confused: "

[Selkieschild64]

I voted for the book version, because it's my favorite scene in FOTR. Arwen doesn't bother me per se, because I think that Glorfindel's role in this scene (not in all of Middle-Earth history, all you Sil fans) could have been filled by Arwen or any other elf.

My problem with the Flight to the Ford Scene is that Frodo didn't cross the Ford alone. This takes away from *Frodo's* character, IMO, and has nothing particular to do with Arwen. I understand why cinematically it would have been difficult to accomplish, but I would have paid double for a ticket to hear Frodo say "by Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall have neither the Ring nor me!" *sigh* That scene slays me every time.

Kelly

[Darth Saruman]

For the movie, the Arwen scene worked better. Since PJ wanted to feature her prominently, it made sense for her to do it.

For the book, the Glorfindel scene worked better, as long as Tolkien wasn't planning on expanding Arwen's character.

[bek]

I like the Arwen scene better. Somebody help me out here. In the book- return of the King, at the end, Frodo leaves with the elves knowing he will never be cured of the wound. The books made it seem like not such big deal when it happened- he had it for what...about 2 weeks before he reached the river! In the movie, it was much more dramatic. NOT that I the movie ends the same way. It was soo sad!!!

[elf boy]

The books did make a big deal of it when it happened, but in the end of the ROTK not to big of a deal was made of it probably because it wasn't that big of a deal compared to what he had been through taking the ring to Mordor.

[tasar]

ok, actually I absolutely love the big arwen-chase on horses. It's exciting and exciting and...exciting ((And Arwen's clothes are really nice too)). But It also seems to me that Frodo is quite unnecessary on her horse. He's like a sack she carries with her. And that's not nice at all.

[ReadWryt]

Then perhaps Jackson should make a movie about women getting chased on horseback instead of pretending to be making "The Lord of the Rings"...

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Perhaps Tolkien should have made the movie. ;)

(Tolkien's movie: 1 extra hour showing 6 days of trapsing thru mud, rain, and rocky hills, then a thirty second one-mile race to the ford, with an unlikely wounded Frodo making a foolhardy stand against 9 black riders, then passing out. Glorfindel gets 5 total minutes of screen time out of 9 hrs, make that 10 hours of movie.)

Really though, don't be a spoiled-sport and ruin half
our fun. The movie was exciting, separate from the books, and gives
us hours and hours of extra enjoyment making comparisons and
showing our indignation. :p

[ReadWryt]

with an unlikely wounded Frodo making a foolhardy stand against 9 black riders, then passing out.

So true! What a rediculous idea...why ever would ANYBODY believe that this would be at all a popular idea, or even the least bit believable. Thank goodness nobody ever included such a silly thing in any of the world's most popular and beloved books or I'm certain that it's sales and readership would be next to nil...

[elf boy]

Originally posted by tasar
It also seems to me that Frodo is quite unnecessary on her horse. He's like a sack she carries with her. And that's not nice at all.

urm... Frodo had the ring, she couldn't just leave him behind cause it made her look better.

[Darth Saruman]

Originally posted by elf boy


urm... Frodo had the ring, she couldn't just leave him behind cause it made her look better. You don't know women like I know women. They will sell their souls to look good.

[ReadWryt]

"...and here we see Natalie...Natalie is wearing the stunning sheer white linen with the asymetric low cowled neckline and floor length double slit skirtline. New this season is the accessory all the more daring women will be seen with, an injured Hobbit..."

[blacksword]

Baah, i say PJ can take hos Arwen and go to the moon. LOTR is not a romance epic, so why does he have to show us any stuff concerning Arwen. Heck this is the same guy removing the scouring of the shire (which i really doubt for he did, then his mind is on some serious crack). I will take the book anyday.

[Darth Saruman]

Originally posted by blacksword
Baah, i say PJ can take hos Arwen and go to the moon. LOTR is not a romance epic, so why does he have to show us any stuff concerning Arwen. Heck this is the same guy removing the scouring of the shire (which i really doubt for he did, then his mind is on some serious crack). I will take the book anyday. The Scouring of the Shire wouldn't work in a movie adaption of ROTJ that's only about three hours long! It works for the book, because it is long compared to the movie so a lengthy denoument makes sense. However, you have to end off a major motion action picture with a bang. Any less than 30 minutes devoted to the Scouring wouldn't do it justice and I'd rather see it cut out than done badly.

[Rúmil]

I know what you mean, but he could at least include it in the Director's Cut for the true fans who would sit trough a 12-hour movie if it's Tolkien. But no. He's not even going to shoot it. I believe he even said in a press conferance that he didn't understand what the whole deal with that chapter was!

[Talimon]

That's not what he said at all. He said he understood the reasons Tolkien included it, but he always had a personal problem with it. That's not saying much. I'm sure all of us have some part of the book that we aren't completely comfortable with. Tolkien himself even wrote in the introduction how some fans love the same parts others hate, and that it's impossible to please everyone in such a long book. Regardless, the reason PJ is cutting it is more due to it's uncinematic nature then anything else. But I agree with you that it should still be included, at least on the DVD.

[Rúmil]

I'm sorry, I got a little carried away against PJ. I felt if someone "isn't comfortable" the SOS then he has understood nothing about it. ;)
Do you think it fans made a petition he would shoot that scene for the DVD?

[Ecthelion]

That would be aewsome, but I highly doubt it.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

I think he already shot that scene, since it was shown in Galadriel's Mirror. Personally, I thank him for that token shot, but I don't care if he passes over that part of the book. For one thing, he would have to NOT kill off Saruman in the second movie, and I understand that to be a done deal. But you never know what feedback might accomplish. Bombardments of letters to politicians often change the course of their actions. Maybe letters to PJ might sway his resolve. I certainly would rather NOT see Saruman die in such an undignified manner as falling on a spiked wheel. That will take away the thunder from the breaking of the staff scene. That is more offensive to me than missing the SOS scene.
(my opinions.)

[Rúmil]

It is pretty dismal to have Saruman be killed by PJ in that sashion (not to mention the taking away of the whole meaning of the thing) but the SOS being scrapped is the worst thing yet. I am offically boycotting the Rotk for that. (and unoficially going to see it anyway, I'm addicted)

[ReadWryt]

Why would he bother to shoot a scene that he has stated early on would not be in the movie? I suspect he shot just what you see in the Mirror and nothing more...

Imagine if you will...it is the end of "Raiders of the Lost Arc" and Indy returns to the campus after witnessing the destruction of the Eeeeevil Nazis by the power of God. The American Government has hidden the Arc in a safe place and the next 15 minutes of the movie are all about the mess that has formed in Indy's absence...the piles of papers on his desk, the unfortunate ignorance of his students at the hands of the incompetent substitute teacher who worked in his place...and it shows Indy setting his teaching career back on track by fixing as much as he can. Now imagine all the empty seats left by people who decided that seeing the good guy win in the end was an adequate ending to the movie and didn't give a squat about Indy's teaching career because they were never led to care about his job at the university in the first place...

Now, imagine the empty seats in the theater at the end of RotK when, after defeating Shelob, surviving the trip to Mount Doom and finally the ring being destroyed, the primary focus of the whole story as it has been told thus far in the movies, there is 15-25 minutes of Sherrif arguments, dark images of the Shire and finally the death of Saruman at the hands of Wormtongue...Naw, the Scouring is not the right thing to put in that part of the movies as they have been unfolding thus far.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

I agree.

(I still would rather see Saruman banished of into the sunset with Grima following and cursing after him. Then maybe see in sillouette and in the distance, Grima attack and kill Saruman on the road. I think that, with the right surprise element, could be pretty dramatic.)

[Talimon]

I don't see what's wrong with having Grima kill Saruman in the TTT. If the Scouring is being cut I don't see how that diminishes anything from Sarumans death or from the breaking of his staff.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

I don't see how that diminishes anything from Sarumans death or from the breaking of his staff.

The thing I meant would diminish the breaking of the staff would be a gratuitous gross-out death scene of him getting impaled, and which would not even be related to the book, but it will take people's minds off the rest of the content. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess.

[Rúmil]

All I can say is HE's going to be shot if he continues like that :D
Yes, that was cheap and easy, just couldn't miss it.

Well, ReadWryt, you're talking as if the fields of Cormallen were the end of the movie. (like the Eagles flying into the sunset over the wreckage of Mordor singing "this is the end, my friend...") But he still has to do the end of his cheesy Arwen/Aragorn thing, and that's bound to take a good 10 mn. Then there's the grey havens, and if that's done properly, it's 15 mn at least. (what with the explaining and all?) so in a DVD, I stress, for hardcore fans, it wouldn't really be so anticlimatic. If you want to adapt Tolkien and still have meaning in your thing, you have to have some sacrifices to timing and keeping the spectator at the edge of his seat. It wouldn't work in the Lost Ark because, face it, no matter how much you love Indy, it's more of an action film than anything else; there's no reflection behind it, no emotional contents, you're just there to see Indy crack his whip. Lotr film makes you see scenery, costumes, it gets you to imagine yourself in ME (more or less), you don't walk into the theratre to see a well-trimmed movie plot. (that's my opinion anyway)
And for Saruman's death in TTT, well if they're going to twist the plot like this, they might as well impale him or have him boiled alive or what not.

[ReadWryt]

Well there is NO telling what will be shot in the next year to end up on the next two DVDs since there appears to be no end to the shooting. I have come to the conclusion that when Jackson said he was filming all three at once he meant that he was shooting for three straight years...

[Rúmil]

I have come to the conclusion that when Jackson said he was filming all three at once he meant that he was shooting for three straight years... Hee hee very good :D

Allright, wait and see. I'll be purchasing a shotgun just in case.;)

[Talimon]

Grey Havens 15 minutes? You must be exagerating. 15 minutes is a LONG time. The Grey Havens could be 5 minutes easily. There isn't that much dialogue and there aren't that many events. It would be an extremely emotional 5 minutes, but I rather it be like that then spreading it over 15 minutes and making it cheesy.

Again, we find that the difference between PJ fans and haters is that the one group expects to see the ideas behind the events and details portrayed, and the other apparently only cares for the events and details themselves. When I say that the Scouring should be included I by no means mean the exact dialogue or events within. In fact Saruman doesn't even need to be there. The point is that we see the Shire wounded. You can get this message across in countless different ways. For the movie, I can easily see it being 5 minutes, maybe 10 for the DVD (and that would include all events up to the Grey Havens).

[ReadWryt]

um...excuse me for assuming that when you said you thought an ENTIRE CHAPTER should be included then you meant that there should be a damaged shire and none of the REST of the Chapter. Perhaps if you hadn't mentioned the Chapter Title and said that it should be included I would not have so presumptuously assumed that you intended to imply that you felt that "The Scouring of the Shire" should be included...

[Darth Saruman]

Screw the Grey Havens.
I have a feeling that TTT will end with Sam having great sex with Rose.

[Talimon]

TTT? RotK...or not ;).

I'm sorry if I confused you RW, but in my opinion there is a big difference between including parts/references of chapters and straight up cutting them. Tom Bombadil was completely cut. Galadriels Mirror, however, was included, at least in part. You may disagree about what's important about different sections of the book, and in turn might disagree with PJ's interpretation. But I think PJ, using the techniques he has been using thus far, could handle the Scouring well. That's just my opinion, however, and if PJ disagrees then that's his right.

[Amichi]

Eight pages. EIGHT pages.

I should have listened to that little voice in my head about six months ago that said "Amichi, take someone up on their implied invitation and go check out TolkienForum!" Ah well. I'll try to be brief.

I've stated before that I'm only a casual fan of Tolkien. This will bias my view, I'm guessing, so bear with.

On the Glorfindel scene in the book versus the Arwen scene in the movie...

I like the action behind the book version, I must admit. Letting Frodo face down the Nazgul on his own would have been infinitely more powerful than having him rescued and healed. Score a point for the book. On the other hand, having what amounts to a minor god show up to heal Frodo was a cop out.

And on a couple of sidenotes:

In general, Tolkien uses a lot of 'use and throw away' characters in LOTR, if you take LOTR as its own entity. Tom Bombadil, Radagast, Glorfindel, and the Elves on the Road, to name several. While this works for a book, I don't think it'd work for a movie. To be honest, I found it somewhat annoying in the book as well, so there's that. Using Arwen was prudent, I think, though her grossly inflated role was somewhat... well.. grossly inflated. But even so, there are character like that in the books themselves! Tom Bombadil, for instance. Maybe it's my roleplayer's blood, but when a group of adventurers gets a 'get out of jail free' card for the entirety of the journey through an evil forest, I scoff at the inexperience of the gamemaster. Or, in the words of the security officer from Galaxy Quest:

"That's not right!"

And don't even get me started on what I would have been forced to do had PJ included all of the songs from the books. *twitch* Talk about ruining the mood...

[Rúmil]

I agree with Amichi on the point of Bombadil and the songs: they only work in the book because of all the background and the litterary meaning behind them: in a movie Bombadil would look like a 'get out of jail free' card.

On the other hand, as for 'single occurrance - disposable characters', well, it works sort of like in real life: you meet people you nerver met before, and never will again. That's partly what makes Lotr different from other novels: quite apart from the 'main' storyline, there's a whole world evolving besides. I 'real life', you never stop for every unknown guy in the street and say: "whoa, that's wrong. What's this geezer doing here? He's nothing to do with my life!" Lotr is not just a novel, it's a glimpse into a wholly new, created world.

Sorry if a I strayed a little from the subject at hand; in short, Glorfindel from the book is both much more logical and meaningful than the cheap twist PJ gave to the story. (In fact, that treatment of Arwen is the main thing I object to in the movie; the rest is, if not perfect, at least quite passable.)

[Talimon]

In a nice list format let me explain why having Arwen is not cheap:

*Having her risk the road to Rivendell in Aragorns place foreshadows the approaching sacrifice she will have to make for him (staying in Middle Earth and forsaking her immortality).

*It's an incredibly dramatic way to introduce what is going to be an important charachter in the movies. I agree with PJ's decision to have more of Arwen then the books, for the simple reason that it makes her marriage with Aragorn at the end much more believeable. Since there are no appendices this makes perfect sense. This decision being made, it's an incredibly powerful way to introduce her.


Let me also state that I don't agree 100% with the way PJ handled Arwen. I believe that Frodo should still have had the chance to defy the Nazgul. But up to the Ford itself I think that scene was done perfectly. It's only at the actual Ford where I personally would have prefered Frodo to defy the Nazgul. That being said, I don't see that single scene ruining the whole movie.

[Rúmil]

I do not think the Arwen scene ruins the movie. I think PJ ruined the Arwen scene. Arwen's "warrior princess" acting is wrong (without going into the debate about whether she was miscast) and not allowing Frodo to stand up to the Nazgûl is VERY WRONG. But that is one bad scene in one good movie. Overall, it was the best Tolkien adaptation on screen yet (by a very long shot).

[ReadWryt]

Meeeeeechi! Hey, I NEVER invited you over here!! Heheheh Just Kidding.:) Glad to have you aboard old friend...

[Amichi]

There are no strange initiation rights over here, are there Readwryt? O_O I mean, you -know- where I come from... or rather, let me adapt...

"You know of what I speak. A pool, gelatinized."

Heh. Yea. Thanks for the welcome, and my apologies for the earlier misunderstanding. That was all me.

[Lhunithiliel]

Glorfindel all the way!
I see him as a symbol of those mighty powers that stood up against far more dangerous dark menaces, described in the Silmarillion. So, he is deffinitely in the right place!
In the movie Arwen has been strangely given a too important role (both in the FOTR and as I have heard - in the TTT as well)! On one hand, it is a good idea - to have a woman (though a half-elf) who influences some events. But on the other hand, what would she have done without her father's and Gandalf's help there at the banks of Bruinen? Would she succeed without Galadriel's help and support, too? Would she be able to help Frodo if she did not posess the elvish powers? :confused:
Having watched the film, and comaring to the story in the book, I was surprised :confused: , and (sorry!) a bit annoyed :mad: to see HER instead of the glorious Elven King! I think she should have been kept just as Aragorn's "tender" inspiration and not turned into some Elven worrior. It doesn't suit her.
At least this is what I think!
Don't kill me!

[pohuist]

I just can't believe some of you guys. Whatever JRRT did or wrote is infinitely better than PJ has or will ever be able to film, write or whatever else he does with it. In additon I will sign everything RW has (and did) say abou this and other changes