Tell me I'm not seeing this...

[Aerin]

I am downloading the Two Towers trailer (and looking at the shots while it's loading), and I just saw something that made me stop cold.
Does Eowyn fight Aragorn and win?!?! :eek: It looks like they're doing another scene like Arwen had - with her sword pointed at Aragorn's neck, and he has his hands up in surrender.
Is that how a Ranger would act? He would not have lasted long in the wilds of Middle Earth if every time he came up against a girl with a sword he lost....:mad:

O my... I just got a little farther in the trailer.. and there is Arwen kissing Aragorn... AT HELM'S DEEP?!?

I beg you, tell me that Arwen does not fight at Helm's Deep... that would completely ruin the whole movie and completely sever any link there might be to the book! :(

[Mormegil]

Don't be so melodramatic.

It's not the end of the world if Arwen fights at Helm's Deep. Ok, it's not in the book, or how Tolkien intended. But this is PJ's interpretation and he has chosen it this way. If you don't like it then don't watch the film.

[Aerin]

How do you call something completely made up an "interpretation"?
Arwen did not even have a part in the book - how does PJ figure to put her in one of the most important battles? If it's for the politically correct female role (aka Xena-type), then Eowyn should more than fill the role.

[Mormegil]

By interpretation I meant that PJ is telling the story of LOTR. In his way. He has his reasons for doing it the way he is doing it. There is a distinct lack of major leading women in the book. If PJ had made the film exactly as the book then feminists everywhere would go off their heads and condemn the film. PJ has made Arwen's role bigger for this reason. Eowyn will probably be there too, that means two strong women characters, making the story less sexist.
Arwen does have a part in the book. Just not much.

PJ is making the film for a film going audience, not for Tolkien purists. He is trying to make money, and to do that certain things have to be changed. These are things that you have to realise. Things will be sacrificed if you want to see LOTR on the big screen. As I said before, no-one is forcing you to watch it, so if you don't like it you don't have to watch it.

[Aerin]

So Eowyn killing the Witchking is a part of the "distinct lack of major leading women in the book"?
As I have stated before, I realize that PJ wants the movies to appeal to a larger fan base, and therefore must make certain changes to appease different groups.
It's not the Tolkien puritanism that I was making a point about; it's that PJ has so dramatically changed the entire story to make it fit in with his idea of how LotR should be. If he wants to make these movies, that's fine with me. I don't have to watch them, as you said.
What does bug me, though, is that he's trying to pass his creation off as Tolkien's books. If he is going to change it so much, why bother calling it what a few of the characters and some of the plot are loosely based on.. why not come up with a name of its own so people will know it's Peter Jackson's creation, not Tolkien's.

[Mormegil]

Of course Eowyn is a strong character, but apart from her and Galadriel. There are no more strong leading females.

As for the name thing. Did you not read my above post? PJ is making LOTR to make money. He will make more money by calling it LOTR and not something else. The movie industry is all about making money, staying true to a book a film is based on comes lower on the list.

[Aerin]

It would seem in the film industry that staying close to the book is nowhere on the list at times. But lying? That seems to be in a classification all by itself; and PJ has done quite a bit of it.

On one hand, I see why PJ put Arwen in the role he did; the whole PC issue is one that needs to be treated with the utmost delicacy.
On the other hand, I think it's ridiculous that such a wonderful story has to be diminished because of a few radicals with the idea that any woman should be just as good at fighting and ranging the wilderness as a Ranger who has lived that way all his life.
It seems since Xena is making no new episodes, her prodigy is going into the theatres disguised as an Elf.:rolleyes:

[4th Age Scribe]

I only saw the trailer once at the movies, and she does indeed parry his sword with a dagger [puting it to his throat]. She certainly isn't an enemy when this take place, so I would think Aragorn is not trying whole heartedly to kill the lady.

[I.am.Smeagol]

Geeze. I dont think this is about sexism. I mean if you think about it realistily in our middle ages women did not go out and fight, so the book is realistic in that sence. I am quite angry at the twist of the plot. I am female, and would not be offended if there had been no strong female characters in the movie. In fact, I feel slightly offended that the plot of LotR has been changed to suit PJ's needs.

(Dont get my wrong, I am all for women's equallity, and I still love the movies because it portrays ME and the characters pretty well..)

[Aerin]

I agree with you, I.am.Smeagol., the female roles in LotR do not need to be altered in any way because Tolkien's writings made sense and were historically accurate (in a way; I'm by no means saying that LotR is an actual history meant to be taken literally). Women did not run around "beating up the bad guys back then".
What PJ has seemingly done is to force into our minds the presence of Arwen and Eowyn's fighting abilities. (even though Eowyn is the only one who could actually fight...:rolleyes: )

[I.am.Smeagol]

Yep! (Wow,, someone who actually agrees w/ me. This is scary! O_o)
Btw, where is everyone downloading the TTT trailor from? I would like to down load it to get captures of Smeagol for my website. (iamsmeagol.net--but its not done yet)

[Anamatar IV]

i think you dont have the real trailor. Mine is from inside the cinema:
It didnt look like Aragorn surrendered but obviously had no intention to kill Eowyn.
I didnt see arwen @ helms deep.

[I.am.Smeagol]

Nevermind everyone, I found a few versions. =)
Well Aragorn, does look a bit flustered. And it shows Arwen kinda dead or dieing. Erm. Well thats what it looks like. If they have Arwen kill the Nazgul I will be rather angry. To say it in the least.

[Thorin]

Another thing that bothers me about this whole Eowyn thing is that Tolkien made her so everyone thought she was a weak women who should stay at home....She surprised them by sneaking off to battle with them. Her disguise was perfect because nobody would have thought her to do so...

Her openly showing her sword skills and besting a Ranger takes that away, never mind makes the Ranger and heir of Isildur look like an idiot...

Sorry, Mormegil. There is no excuse for changing so many things and altering so many characters. When you are claiming to be a fan(like PJ), spending so much time and money to make a movie out of an epic, and claiming to be making a true rendition (However, I think PJ has realised the idiocy of doing this when you are changing everything), you will treat it with much more respect than PJ has.

When does it become PJ's Lord of the Rings, instead of JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings? I don't want to see PJ's Arwen vamped, politically correct version...I want to see the real deal that he promised. Down with PJ! :mad:

[ReadWryt]

Let me just state for the record that Female Activities and their relation to Warfare and other events 6000 years ago are not well documented at all...in fact there is scant little written about events 6000 years ago at all. As for Jackson and his claims of not making "major changes" to the characters and Liv Tylor's claim that Arwen doesn't fight or act like Xena, we can all see how reliable those sources are and how honestly we can accept anything they say in the future...

[son of bilbo]

***Just for the record, the next person who fills a post with the same word over and over will be deleted without question or chance of appology. This type of juvinile behavior will not be tolerated in the least. R.W. ***

[Nicholas Blake]

Does Eowyn fight Aragorn and win?!?! It looks like they're doing another scene like Arwen had - with her sword pointed at Aragorn's neck, and he has his hands up in surrender.
Is that how a Ranger would act? He would not have lasted long in the wilds of Middle Earth if every time he came up against a girl with a sword he lost....

Hm, aren't we forgetting that Aragorn took on five Nazgul alone? Hm, then he sliced up the Watcher in the Water with only help from Boromir and Legolas... Oh yeah, he also fought a small army of Uruk Hai all by himself...

Yep, Aragorn is such a sissy. He could never survive in Middle-earth, cuz he always surrenders to girls! Pfst!

;)

[son of bilbo]

I don't appreciate you impersonating me. I am so remorsful, so remorsful, and I am remorsful that I kept on and kept on and wouldn't stop keeping on saying things twice.


Arwen better not die in the TT.

[son of bilbo]

And she better not die.

[I.am.Smeagol]

PJ couldnt kill off his major female supporting role. O_o
Isnt this what this mess is about in the first place, why there is soo much Arwen? I think I am about to strangle the warrior queen myself. (Movie Arwen, of course.) If she even thinks of killing the whitch king, or taking on an Eowyn like role, Im gonna be pretty P-d off.

[Grond]

Why, may I ask, is it necessary to have a strong female lead in this movie? There have been numerous recent releases with minimal female involvement in the film. A few examples are, Saving Private Ryan, Castaway, BlackHawk Down and so on.

Having said all that, the simple truth is that JRRT did write a very strong female lead into the book by the name of Eowyn. She's the one that beheads a flying reptile and then vanquishes the Nazgul Lord. :)

[ReadWryt]

I wouldn't put too much energy into picking apart this thing. It's not like we have guarantees that any of this footage will make it into the final movie anyways. The screenplay isn't done, the shooting hasn't finished and the studio has final say as to what will be in the theatrical release, so anything shown now is premature and has a chance of not showing up in the final cut...

[son of bilbo]

I do agree. It is quite silly to lose our heads over something that may not even come to be. Good call.

[PRH]

Grond, using Castaway as an example is not bolstering your point. There's a difference between a predominantly male cast and an essentially one-person cast.

The other two movies were strictly historical/fact based war movies in which major female characters would've been historically inaccurate. Female characters would've stuck out like a sore whatever.

I'm not disagreeing with your point that major female characters are not necessary, I just don't think you've listed any solid examples.

I'm not sure that the issue with Arwen was ever expanding the female presence in the movies. I think rather PJ et al felt that the Arwen/Aragorn thing just wouldn't work cinematically as it appeared in the book. So the choices were to either cut it altogether or to expand Arwen's character to give her some presence.

[Grond]

Originally posted by PRH
Grond, using Castaway as an example is not bolstering your point. There's a difference between a predominantly male cast and an essentially one-person cast.

The other two movies were strictly historical/fact based war movies in which major female characters would've been historically inaccurate. Female characters would've stuck out like a sore whatever.

I'm not disagreeing with your point that major female characters are not necessary, I just don't think you've listed any solid examples.

I'm not sure that the issue with Arwen was ever expanding the female presence in the movies. I think rather PJ et al felt that the Arwen/Aragorn thing just wouldn't work cinematically as it appeared in the book. So the choices were to either cut it altogether or to expand Arwen's character to give her some presence. Okay... how about "The Godfather"? In it, there were actually more female characterization in the novel than made it to the big screen. Lucy Mancini in particular had a huge role in the book and barely made it on screen. (Maybe 30 seconds).

Pesonally, I think this whole issue is simply one of PJ thinking he could tell a better tale than Tolkien wrote. I don't buy that any of the major plot changes were done because they had to be done for cinematic reasons. Arwen's expansion was because PJ wanted a stronger female character. It's that simple. He disliked some of the logic in the book... so he changed it. Again, he's making the movie so that is his perogative. I just wish he would have been totally honest at the beginning. I thought we were going to get the real deal and had to settle for another wannabee.

[PRH]

I think Kay and Connie were pretty major characters in The Godfather (not to mention Apolonia). I never read the book. Mario Puzo had a hand in the screenplay so I think it had his blessing. Not sure what the point of bringing up GF was...

Just imagine this - what if Arwen had just been seen briefly in Rivendell (not saying a word) then showed up in Minas Tirith to marry Aragorn. Good? Hell no! Along the way in the book all we get it like 3 veiled allusions that Aragorn is thinking about her from time to time. The only reason the story works is because we all read it later in the appendix. To show the book version (no extra appendix material) in the movie would've been utterly ridiculous. It would've been better to cut the Arwen thread altogether. The only choice was to expand her character. There may have been better choices than having her replace Glorfindel (or not) but the fact is she needed more involvement than the book gave.

[Grond]

PRH, I've always conceded that there were ways to give Arwen more character development in FotR without compromising the author's intent. (IMO)

I thought the scene in Rivendell with Arwen and Aragorn was wonderful and felt it conveyed the same type of emotion one got when reading Of Arwen and Aragorn in the Appendix. I also didn't have a sizeable problem with Arwen replacing Glorfindel. I would have preferred to have met PJ's vision of Glorfindel but would have been satisfied had he simply replaced Glor's character with Arwen.

It is the change in "strength" of Arwen's character that disturbs me. It reveals a strength which she may have possessed but which JRRT chose not to reveal. I simply question PJ's reasons for changing the portrayal.

PRH... you know I loved the movie. I've already said so numerous times. I'll be first in line for the TT... but I still see no reason for the significant changes we've talked about in the past. The movie would have been just as big a success had it remained more in line with the book. ;)

PS In the great scheme of things, Kay and Connie were minor. Appolonia was an important aside but her character was meaningless (heck she didn't even speak English). The important character that was left out was Lucy Mancini and her relationship with Sonny and later with Jules and the way that relationship interacted with Johnny Fontaine. You are right though that Mario Puzo did co-write the screenplay and the finished product reflects the author's involvement.

And, my point was that a major...strong...dominant female lead is not a requirement in a fantasy adventure movie. Especially when the author didn't write the part.

[PRH]

I don't think we're talking about dominant leading-part women.

Kay was pretty big.

The only reason you say that about Arwen is because she held a sword up. I really doubt anything would've been noticed if she didn't draw her sword at the Ford.

To talk about compromising Arwen's character is a tad ridiculous. In the book she had no character - appendix included. She existed to love Aragorn and was basically uninteresting.

Personally, I could've seen Arwen replacing Glorfindel insomuch as the book involved Glorfindel (meaning Frodo would've ridden to the Ford alone). That would've been fine too insofar as expanding Arwen character. That was enough. I guess PJ et. al felt Frodo was in no condition to ride and to have him defy the Nazgul at the Ford would come off as too far-fetched given his condition. That's an entirely different topic.

I thought the bridge scene in Rivendell was great too. Probably not enough to sustain Arwen's character until the end of ROTK though.

Looks like this is becoming another 'Arwen at the Ford' thread...

[Thorin]

Praise the Lord!!! And here I am!!!.......:D

Originally posted by PRH

The only reason you say that about Arwen is because she held a sword up. I really doubt anything would've been noticed if she didn't draw her sword at the Ford.

I would have noticed.....:D


Originally posted by PRH
Personally, I could've seen Arwen replacing Glorfindel insomuch as the book involved Glorfindel (meaning Frodo would've ridden to the Ford alone). That would've been fine too insofar as expanding Arwen character. That was enough. I guess PJ et. al felt Frodo was in no condition to ride and to have him defy the Nazgul at the Ford would come off as too far-fetched given his condition. That's an entirely different topic.

The problem lies in the horrific condensing of the time frame....When the fellowship comes across the trolls (in the book), Frodo is still alive and active (though in considerable pain), not eyes rolling in the back of his head, raspy death rattle like PJ did with Elijah....He made him get more sicker then he was...If he hadn't done that, he could have made Frodo do the chase.

(ICAN'T HELP IT, I HAVE TO PUT A DIG IN HERE!!).....If PJ "et al. would have followed the book better, they wouldn't have had to wonder what PJ et al would need to think....It would have been what JRR wrote....But PJ had to go and make it complicated for himself...I'll shut up now....I do have more to say.....but.....

[Grond]

...The only reason you say that about Arwen is because she held a sword up. I really doubt anything would've been noticed if she didn't draw her sword at the Ford.My problem wasn't with the sword... it was with the fact that she saved Frodo when in the book, it was good old Frodo who defied the Nazgul and Elrond and Gandalf who brought down the River vis a vis the power of the two Elven Rings.To talk about compromising Arwen's character is a tad ridiculous. In the book she had no character - appendix included. She existed to love Aragorn and was basically ininteresting.That would be your opinion. And, besides, the book was quite successful without having Arwen play an important role... so I don't quite get your point. We have Galadriel and Eowyn both playing strong female characters, what is the point in adding Arwen? (Can we say Liv Tyler???)I guess PJ et. al felt Frodo was in no condition to ride and to have him defy the Nazgul at the Ford would come off as too far-fetched given his condition. That's an entirely different topic.It is the same topic because he had Arwen rescue him, whether it was with a sword or without. It wouldn't have mattered. It was not her role.

As for this resembling the Arwen at the Ford thread... it does because that example is being used to discuss more distortions by the Director.

[ReadWryt]

Elrond and Gandalf who brought down the River vis a vis the power of the two Elven Rings

Really...I wasn't aware that it was made evident that Elrond used ANY magic to make the flood. In fact, the only thing I remember said on the subject was that "Elrond commanded it..." and that "The river of this valley is under his power...". While I am not saying definately that there was no magic involved at all, it seems to me that this could just as easily mean that Elrond stuck his head out the window and yelled "Open the Floodgates!".

To talk about compromising Arwen's character is a tad ridiculous. In the book she had no character - appendix included. She existed to love Aragorn and was basically ininteresting.

This actually describes then two thirds of all the characters in The Silmarillion...

I guess PJ et. al felt Frodo was in no condition to ride and to have him defy the Nazgul at the Ford would come off as too far-fetched given his condition. That's an entirely different topic.

Funny how the one person who actually KNEW if Frodo was too bad off to do stand up to the Nazgul, Tolkien, went ahead and wrote it that way...and that you, and Millions of others, found it perfectly believable and rational. What you are in fact saying in this statement is that Peter Jackson, New Line Cinema and others knew the character of Frodo better then Tolkien.

[PRH]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
This actually describes then two thirds of all the characters in The Silmarillion...

Not really. We do get some dialog and actions of of a good many of them.

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Funny how the one person who actually KNEW if Frodo was too bad off to do stand up to the Nazgul, Tolkien, went ahead and wrote it that way...and that you, and Millions of others, found it perfectly believable and rational. What you are in fact saying in this statement is that Peter Jackson, New Line Cinema and others knew the character of Frodo better then Tolkien.

Me? Where did I say I believed it? I was careful to say "PJ et. al" so as not to endorse this change. Funny how you always read what you want to in other's posts.

[Grond]

Now I'm consfused PRH. RW states in his post (which you quoted) that you and millions of others beleived the book. He then stated that what it appears you are saying is that PJ, New Line and others know the book better than Tolkien. What you said exactly is as follows.I guess PJ et. al felt Frodo was in no condition to ride and to have him defy the Nazgul at the Ford would come off as too far-fetched given his condition. That's an entirely different topic.In past posts you have supported this change. In past posts you've stated "I guess PJ et. al felt Frodo was in no condition to ride..." Endorsing the change = support of the change. Support of the change = PJ knowing the character better than JRRT.

I'm sure that I'm not understanding you PRH. Please clarify your position.

[PRH]

Can't you understand the distinction between the following statements?:

1) "I guess PJ et. al felt that Frodo was in no condition to..."

2) "Frodo was in no condition to..."

I guess not. #2 expresses the opinion of the person writing the statement. #1 guesses the frame of mind of the (third person) screenwriters. I put that "that's another topic" part in because I didn't want this to become that debate all over again.

I have not contradicted myself because I put forth no opinion of my own on this matter yet. But if you're asking for it, here it is:

I am very torn on this matter. I think given the build up of Frodo's condition in the book it was pretty far-fetched to think he could manage what he did at the Ford. Hence the change makes sense. On the other hand, it was Tolkien's writing so that hold's an ultimate truth of it's own, sensical or no.

I grieve more for the overall loss of Frodo's courage in the movie than just the loss of his Nazgul defiance at the Ford. If he'd stabbed at the Witch King on Weathertop and stabbed the Troll's foot (granted, he did slice at it's hand but that's only when he was cornered) then maybe I could've done without his far-fetched defiance at the Ford but losing all of these bravery instances was a little too much.

[Grond]

PRH, your comments give me hope for the human race again. :)

[stevehope]

I actually think that the movie, by portraying some of Frodo's choices as his OWN rather than the last option after considering all others (taking the ring to Rivendell, then volunteering to take it to Mordor), makes Frodo look brave. Maybe he is portrayed as a little docile in the battle scenes of FOTR, but that may also be a reasonable cinematic substitute for not really being able to communicate the immense burden of the ring--by making Frodo more physically inactive onscreen than he was in the book, perhaps it makes the viewer more continually aware of his special burden and the importance of Frodo to the other Fellowship members. But when he wraps his hand around the ring and looks at Gandalf and says, "What must I do?" with a growing look of resolve on his face, I think he does a pretty good job of conveying Frodo as Tolkien intended.

I AM hoping that the next few movies show the hobbits in more of a "heroic" role than the first one. Especially with the Scouring of the Shire supposedly being taken out of the movies, it may be difficult for PJ to replace the "look at these funny little guys" feeling of the first movie. Some of the most powerful acts of heroism in the books come from the hobbits, and I hope that doesn't get overlooked in favor of using them as comic relief.

[Grond]

...But when he wraps his hand around the ring and looks at Gandalf and says, "What must I do?" with a growing look of resolve on his face, I think he does a pretty good job of conveying Frodo as Tolkien intended.Yeah, that goes well with his heroic action in asking Gandalf, "No one else knows where it is?? Do they Gandalf? Do they?" I thought he gave us his "wetting his britches" look when he said that. :)I AM hoping that the next few movies show the hobbits in more of a "heroic" role than the first one. Especially with the Scouring of the Shire supposedly being taken out of the movies, it may be difficult for PJ to replace the "look at these funny little guys" feeling of the first movie. Some of the most powerful acts of heroism in the books come from the hobbits, and I hope that doesn't get overlooked in favor of using them as comic relief. To this I wholeheartedly agree. The first movie might have easily been entitled "The Four Stooges".

[ReadWryt]

PRH,

...you are correct, I should have phrased that "...What you are in fact saying in this statement is that Peter Jackson, New Line Cinema and others thought they knew the character of Frodo better then Tolkien.", instead of making the offence of shoving you into their fold. I'm sorry.

R.W.

[PRH]

Thank you RW.

[PRH]

Is this more of your nonsensical posting s.o.b.?

[Gandalf_White]

Man if PJ does any of that stuff (maetioned at the beginning of the thread)he will ruin LOTR!:eek: HELP!:eek: I don't care if he is writing this in HIS interpretation. His interpretation is ALL WRONG! Arwen had like a sentence written about her in The Fellowship of the Ring and then didn't show up again until The Return of the King. How can PJ screw something up THAT bad. He just broke my heart. :( That stuff had better not be in the movie or PJ will be hearing from ME!:mad:

[Talimon]

First of all, the preview doesn't show Arwen at Helm's Deep. It shows her embracing Aragorn, but you have no way of knowing that it's at Helm's Deep.

Secondly, if she's at Helm's Deep, I can garauntee that she doesn't fight. PJ has said numerous times that she won't be fighting in the movies.

Thirdly, Eowyn doesn't defeat Aragorn, she just parries one of his strokes. There's a big difference. And as for Arwen catching him in the wood, she's the daughter of Elrond. She is of greater lineage then he is, and can be assumed to have at least the same ability in stealth. Just because she snuck up on him doesn't mean she could beat him in a sword fight.

[Gandalf_White]

That makes me feel soooo much better. ;)

[Aerin]

If Arwen is not at Helm's Deep, does Aragorn return to Rivendell? To add to that, she looks like she has riding clothes on; perhaps she was just riding out in the forest one day and just happened to come upon Aragorn? :rolleyes:

PJ guaranteed no fighting, hm? I seem to remember him guaranteeing he would keep the movie as close to the book as he could....
Maybe Arwen comes up, breaks a nail on a rock at Helm's Deep (instead of cutting her cheek on a tree branch), chants a few magic words, and the Orcs fall down dead? [/sarcasm]

I'm not sure what school of swordsmanship you are familiar with, but when one has one's sword at the throat of one's opponent, that usually means one has won the fight. The trailer showed Aragorn too close up to see his arms, but it did not look like he had his sword in any position other than some kind of surrender.

Arwen from greater lineage than Aragorn? Unless I have completely missed Aragorn's entire story, he's descended from Isildur, you know, the guy who defeated Sauron? :rolleyes:
Comparing the lineage of Elves to the lineage of Aragorn is a little difficult, unless you are comparing the deeds of their forebears.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Aerin
If Arwen is not at Helm's Deep, does Aragorn return to Rivendell? To add to that, she looks like she has riding clothes on; perhaps she was just riding out in the forest one day and just happened to come upon Aragorn? :rolleyes:

I don't see what your logic is. Arwen could meet Aragorn at Edoras, Helm's Deep after the battle, or even Isengard for that matter. Obviously she's come down from Rivendell, but that doesn't automatically mean she's at Helm's Deep, let alone fighting.

Originally posted by Aerin
PJ guaranteed no fighting, hm? I seem to remember him guaranteeing he would keep the movie as close to the book as he could....
Maybe Arwen comes up, breaks a nail on a rock at Helm's Deep (instead of cutting her cheek on a tree branch), chants a few magic words, and the Orcs fall down dead? [/sarcasm][/B]

As close as he could while still leaving the movie accessible to new-comers. He never gauranteed that he'd keep the movie as true as the book. In fact, there's this great quote from him saying that his goal is to make 3 good movies, not 3 good adaptations. He'll keep as much as he can while still keeping the movie under his guidelines of "good".

Originally posted by Aerin
I'm not sure what school of swordsmanship you are familiar with, but when one has one's sword at the throat of one's opponent, that usually means one has won the fight. The trailer showed Aragorn too close up to see his arms, but it did not look like he had his sword in any position other than some kind of surrender.[/B]

Are we talking about Arwen or Eowyn? Arwen never fought Aragorn, and so there is nothing skillful about her getting her sword on Aragorn's neck. It merely shows she was stealthy.

If you are talking about Eowyn, she doesn't have the sword anywhere near Aragorn's neck. All she does is parry his strike, which means absolutely nothing. He for sure wasn't in a position of surrender.

Originally posted by Aerin
Arwen from greater lineage than Aragorn? Unless I have completely missed Aragorn's entire story, he's descended from Isildur, you know, the guy who defeated Sauron? :rolleyes:
Comparing the lineage of Elves to the lineage of Aragorn is a little difficult, unless you are comparing the deeds of their forebears. [/B]

It may be difficult to compare, but I was only paraphrasing Tolkiens own words. From the Appendices:

"But as for Arwen the Fair, lady of Imraldis and of Lorien, Evenstar of her people, she is of lineage greater then yours, and has lived in the world already so long that to her you are but as a yearling shoot beside a young birch of many summers."

That's said by Elrond to Aragorn in regards to Arwen. So I think that says something about thier respective lineages.

[Aerin]

I don't see what your logic is. Arwen could meet Aragorn at Edoras, Helm's Deep after the battle, or even Isengard for that matter. Obviously she's come down from Rivendell, but that doesn't automatically mean she's at Helm's Deep, let alone fighting.

I was being sarcastic when I said that. Obviously the Amazing Arwen could ride out to Edoras and meet Aragorn there. Seeing the way in which PJ has already butchered her character, I don't doubt it.

As close as he could while still leaving the movie accessible to new-comers. He never gauranteed that he'd keep the movie as true as the book. In fact, there's this great quote from him saying that his goal is to make 3 good movies, not 3 good adaptations. He'll keep as much as he can while still keeping the movie under his guidelines of "good".

Now it's my turn to pick apart your words. "He'll keep as much as he can whlie still keeping the movie under his guidelines of 'good'."
I'm taking a wild guess and saying that 'keeping as much as he can of the books in the movies' means something different for you than it does for me. To do so, according to my view, would require not adding created characters and situations which the Fellowship never faced.
Then again, PJ absolutely had to use up eight minutes of film on the Wizard's duel instead of showing Galadriel giving the Fellowship their gifts. Necessary indeed.

Are we talking about Arwen or Eowyn? Arwen never fought Aragorn, and so there is nothing skillful about her getting her sword on Aragorn's neck. It merely shows she was stealthy.

I was refering to Eowyn 'fighting' Aragorn. Refresh my memory, please, in which part in FotR did Tolkien write that Arwen wielded a sword, much less snuck up on a Dunedain?

If you are talking about Eowyn, she doesn't have the sword anywhere near Aragorn's neck. All she does is parry his strike, which means absolutely nothing. He for sure wasn't in a position of surrender.

Yes, Eowyn parries Aragorn's strike, but if you watch carefully, it shows Aragorn from the front with a sword pointed at him, and his weapon is not even attempting to counter hers. If it wasn't surrender, what was it?

I had forgotten what it said in the appendices. :o My mistake, and I acknowledge it as such.

[I.am.Smeagol]

I took some screen caps.
He looks pretty defeated to me.

http://www.iamsmeagol.net/images/eoywnfence1.jpg

http://www.iamsmeagol.net/images/eoywnfence2.jpg

So "ha!" to all of you. :D :p

[Talimon]

Screens don't explain it. I have the preview on my comp right here and you can easily tell that Eowyn's sword is a good 2-3 feet from Aragorn. It's hard to explain, but when you see it you can tell that Aragorn isn't defeated. That's just not the right word. You can't imply that were Eowyn and Aragorn to meet in the field Aragorn would die. At most Eowyn parried his sword in anger, while he was simply at ease.

[Thorin]

The fact is, is that it is a misleading, foolish fabrication once again......Regardless of the situation, she shouldn't be doing it anyway....Of course Aragorn could slaughter her, if she got the upper hand it was because he let her and she is showing her feistiness....that is the whole issue where it's wrong...

I've said before that showing Eowyn parrying a sword in anger or defiance is misleading the audience as to how Tolkien portrayed her....Tolkien kept her at bay to show not only her frustration in not being taken seriously, but to also deceive the king and everyone else that she could be a warrior and not a nurse maid....That is why she became Dernhelm and surprised them all like the reader was.....PJ has made it obvious that she is some sort of warrior and that we will probably see her in action soon enough....More dumbing down for the audience....

[I.am.Smeagol]

I just had to come out of lurking on this thread.
True, true. PJ had to dumb a lot of stuff down for the non-readers out there and to make a few bucks *sarcasm*. That’s basically the bottom line.
Was that right of him to do? That seems to be a big issue.
To many die hard Tolkien fans-no. The fact that PJ massacred some of the characters is unacceptable in many peoples’ eyes. I can see where they are coming from. In fact, until very recently I thought that way myself.
But to the eyes of a movie producer who is trying to make a huge (and expensive) undertaking become popular in the eyes of the masses, I think it is acceptable. Yes, he could have done it in a more sophisticated way, and stayed truer to the books, but I don’t think it would be possible to convey everything that can be picked up in Tolkien’s writing on a film.

[Talimon]

I completely disgaree about "dumbing down". That hardly described the changes made. By saying "dumbing down" you are implying that information the audience simply couldn't understand was cut. That's not the case. Lord of the Rings, in terms of plot details, is one of the simpler fantasy books around. Anyone can understand the tale. There is no "intelligence" required. You read the book, you understand it. You have all the time in the world to read it, and so things that might seem complex are actually very simple because you can reread them at no ones expense.

In a 3 hour movie it's simply a matter of time. You have so many elements you want to capture, that small details are often spared. The changes? They help stress certain points. PJ, being the creator, has the right to choose which elements of the books he thinks are most important. Just as every fan has a different view on the books, so does PJ. He's chosen, given such tight framework, to stress certain points that some might disagree with. In stressing these points he's created new scenes. But that's no reason for shunning the movie.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
I completely disgaree about "dumbing down". That hardly described the changes made. By saying "dumbing down" you are implying that information the audience simply couldn't understand was cut. That's not the case.

I don't agree....To me, dumbing down here is assuming the audience won't "get it" and making it obvious for them instead of using suspense or surprise and allowing the audience to use deduction. I can only assume right now because none of us have seen TTT and that may not be totally fair to PJ, but for the sake of argument, let me explain my scenario:

It may seem difficult to show Eowyn's inner struggle with devotion to the king yet wanting to feel useful in battle...So PJ shows this in a blatant way by having her "fight" Aragorn and over emphasise foreshadowing by letting the audience know that she'll be doing her thing soon enough....He could use (and may still do so) shots of her face as she looks longingly after the company departing, comments and hints in the dialogue to the king etc. Little things that make the audience think that there is more than meets the eye with Eowyn, and allow room for some suspense and surprise at the end when Durnhelm reveals "himself"....To me not allowing the audience to figure things out for themselves is also dumbing down, and I think that PJ weakened Eowyn and the plot surrounding her by making her "fight"...Nevermind that it never took place anyway....


Originally posted by Talimon
The changes? They help stress certain points. PJ, being the creator, has the right to choose which elements of the books he thinks are most important. Just as every fan has a different view on the books, so does PJ. He's chosen, given such tight framework, to stress certain points that some might disagree with. In stressing these points he's created new scenes. But that's no reason for shunning the movie.

Sure, take liberties with the interpretation of the scenes with the details within those scenes, but don't totally change the scenes and characters so drastically beyond the written word and put your own invention in place of what is actually written! That is not director's interpretation, that is director's creation....

[Aerin]

Lord of the Rings, in terms of plot details, is one of the simpler fantasy books around. Anyone can understand the tale. There is no "intelligence" required. You read the book, you understand it.

Is there some comic book version someone made of LotR that I'm not aware of that you've read? Lord of the Rings, the books, mind you, has a very complicated plot and story line. The characters are in-depth and believeable; one might even say they are human instead of literary creations.
Not everyone can "understand the tale"; I have met too many people who completely missed the entire struggle between Frodo and the Ring or the courage showed by other members of the Fellowship. The main comments I hear roughly translate into: "The Hobbits are so cute" or "Legolas is so hot; did you seem him in the movie?" or even "I hear someone wrote a book after the movie...". Can you truly say that is 'comprehension' of LotR?
Intelligence is not the issue; it's the level of understanding one walks away from reading the books with. The most 'intelligent' person might read the books and not give a whit about what happens to the characters, while someone with a lower 'intelligence' would be passionately worried about Frodo and Sam in Mordor.

As for 'dumbing down', I really take offense when directors or writers try to write in such manner that 'I will understand it'. The movie was simplified to a painful extreme; so the movie-going masses would be able to 'understand the story line because who has time to read such a big book?'.
I realize PJ could not have put every single detail and description into his movie, but he could have made an effort to keep true to the feeling of LotR. Changing scenes is one matter; deleting and creating characters is another. I believe that steps over the line of 'modifying the work' to 'creating your own world'.

I have the preview on my comp right here and you can easily tell that Eowyn's sword is a good 2-3 feet from Aragorn. It's hard to explain, but when you see it you can tell that Aragorn isn't defeated. That's just not the right word. You can't imply that were Eowyn and Aragorn to meet in the field Aragorn would die. At most Eowyn parried his sword in anger, while he was simply at ease.

Aragorn may not be defeated per se, but he certainly isn't fighting her back. I claim no expertise in sword fighting, but it doesn't seem Aragorn was in any position to assert his authority as a swordsman....
I watched the trailer many times when I downloaded it; I couldn't believe how PJ had changed the characters and feel of TT. To lead into RotK, TT was a darker book then FotR, and had almost a more oppressive feeling to it. Who could have known PJ would have put comic relief in the movie with Eowyn and Aragorn fighting?

[Talimon]

You didn't enjoy TTT? I'm sorry to hear that. I thought it was a great movie. Really top notch. Wait... I didn't see it. My bad. I think I've seen enough trailers/previews to know that the only way to judge a movie is by watching it. Or maybe you can tell me otherwise.

For all we know Aragorn fighting Eowyn is a deep, sad scene in the movie. Who knows. I can't see how you assume it's comic relief. I mean, it hardly came off as comic in the preview, so I don't see how it would work out that way in the movie. Neither of them is smiling or laughing. In terms of comic relief, I'm willing to bet the movie will actually have less then the book. That's not to say I don't love Merry and Pippin in the book, but you can't say there aren't comic hobbit moments throughout.

I really hate that mentality of making up your mind before you've even seen the movie. I mean, I'm completely not surprised at people's reactions to the movie. Some people made up their minds months (dare I say years) in advance that no movie could capture LotR, and already planned out thier crusade to critique every last detail. And this was months before FotR was even released. People were already complaining. It just doesn't surprise me, but it slightly dissapoints, in a way.

I hope you go to the theatre trying to enjoy the movie, not critique it. No one needs your defense. Not even Tolkien. To attempt to defend Tolkiens written word from Jacksons movie shows a lack of confidence. Tolkien's books are too good and deep to be affected by an adaptation, good or bad. The books are already written in stone. Nothing can touch them. I think you'll find that the biggest Tolkien fans (indeed the members of the Tolkien estate itself) smile at the movie and enjoy it. They see the amount of love and passion that was spent in making these mammoth movies, and they realize that even if it didn't capture every last detail of Tolkien it was completely done in tribute. I really like that word. For me, that's what these movies are, a tribute, to Tolkien and his tale. Compare it to a tribute album. The songs are reworked, and sometimes the emphasis is completely changed, but it's always done in love for the source material.

Don't look at the movies as being the movies, or the tale. I've never looked at them that way and never will. That's not what they are, and that's not what they claim to be. This isn't Tolkien, and the moment you accept that you save yourself a world of hurt. Rather, look at these as a tribute by some 3'rd party to Tolkien. Appreciate what's there and move on. I'm surprised at the way some people go through every change. They are completely missing the point.

[Grond]

I find it funny that one would make a statement that the Fellowship of the Ring was a tribute to Tolkien. Were it to be considered that, it would have maintained the integrity of the works and not made me have to go into the theatre completely ignoring everything I knew about the book to enjoy it. Because... that is exactly what I had to do. I loved the movie... but not as a representation of anything that JRRT wrote. PJ was able to take a basic premise of the greatest Sci/fantasy in history (IMHO) and make a great movie with that.

The movie was many things to many people. To me, it captured the physical majesty of Middle-earth but completely missed in the characterizations. PJ was said to have read each chapter he was filming before the scene was shot. I feel maybe he should've simply paid more attention to what he was reading.

[Talimon]

"Integrity" is a word that means different things to different people. Like I've said before, for some people the integrity of the books is lost the moment it strays but a little from Tolkiens written word. For others it's a less conservative afair. You can't claim, however, that either group are less of Tolkien fans.

To me the movies capture the important themes from the books. Not all the themes, obviously, but a good number of them. It doesn't create any new themes, and that's the important thing to remember. Both the book and the movie share the same messages, and the book just happens to have a few more. In the case of FotR, however, I'd argue there aren't many themes that were cut. The only real big one would be Frodo defying the Nazgul, but I can see why PJ changed that for artisitic reasons. Gimili and Legolas would be another, but those scenes were shot and will be included in the DVD, so that's somewhat trivial. I can't see how you can't recognize the main elements of the book though. To me everything is there. Maybe we have different opinions on what LotR is really about, but some things are too obvious to argue otherwise: Frodo and Sam's friendship, Boromirs lust for the ring, Aragorn's uncertainty and final vow for Gondor, the elves sorrow... The list goes on. So much is included. Maybe that's why the changes stick out so much for you, I don't know. But to me it's distinctly LotR. It's different, sure, but that's part of it's appeal. It doesn't replace the books, not by a long shot, but it doesn't try to.

[Theoden]

Originally posted by Aerin
I am downloading the Two Towers trailer (and looking at the shots while it's loading), and I just saw something that made me stop cold.
Does Eowyn fight Aragorn and win?!?! :eek: It looks like they're doing another scene like Arwen had - with her sword pointed at Aragorn's neck, and he has his hands up in surrender.
Is that how a Ranger would act? He would not have lasted long in the wilds of Middle Earth if every time he came up against a girl with a sword he lost....:mad:

O my... I just got a little farther in the trailer.. and there is Arwen kissing Aragorn... AT HELM'S DEEP?!?

I beg you, tell me that Arwen does not fight at Helm's Deep... that would completely ruin the whole movie and completely sever any link there might be to the book! :(

All of us are just going to have to swallow hard and drink the bitterness of what PJ will do to TT.

-me

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Aerin
Yes, Eowyn parries Aragorn's strike, but if you watch carefully, it shows Aragorn from the front with a sword pointed at him, and his weapon is not even attempting to counter hers. If it wasn't surrender, what was it?


Well, a good friend of mine was a student of Kendo... and I will tell you what -- it is quite possible that Aragorn was demonstrating _amusement_ and _tolerance_, rather than anything such as surrendering.

If you have ever seen a trained swordsmen (such as a Kensei master) train with a student, you might see the same sort of 'oh, that was pretty good, I'll give you a little victory...' reactions when a student manages to execute a series of forms in the proper fashion.

Basically, there are a lot of people out there who are trained in their art to the point where it is not necessary to them to 'prove anything' or win. This could have been what ol' Strider was up to.

Edit to note: I've only seen still shots of that scene -- not an actual live action trailer... so my statements are based on that. ;)

[Talimon]

That's very close to the impression I got. To me it seems like Aragorn is simply sighing at the fact that she can't come along. I really doubt that they both take out swords and have a match. That would be corny beyond words. By the trailer it simply looks like Eowyn is filled with rage while Aragorn is thinking about other matters.

[Thorin]

It doesn't matter to me what the context of the scene was, the fact is, is that either way, it detracts from keeping these traits of Eowyn hidden until the proper moment....PJ is giving it away by showing her fiestiness or sword fighting play and takes away from how Tolkien wrote her character....

Realisitically, in my opinion, I doubt Aragorn is in anyway submitting or being beaten by Eowyn, play wise or in anger....I will give PJ the benefit of the doubt that he would not continually make Aragorn seem weak to be bested by two girls in two different movies....:D

[Talimon]

You can't deny the fact that Eowyn was showing signs of longing both in the way she talked and acted. She wanted to go to war, and Aragorn knew it. The movie doesn't detract from that. For all we know PJ could still keept Dernhelm's identity secret.

[Shmandalf]

Hmmmm........

[Oren]

Hey, whats wrong with Aragorn losing to girls?! I myself, being a girl, enjoy seeing him lose... :D

[Talimon]

Sam ripping out with her S&M fantasies.... :)

[Tuor]

I have now seen the trailor, and am completely certain that Aragorn was NOT trying in that little duel. I know this because I have been swordfighting my brothers for 8+ years, and that little maneuver Eowyn did does not work unless the dude your fighting against's primary goal is to not hurt you. Not that I'm a professionnal fencer, but that trick just DOES NOT WORK.

[Oren]

Really? Thats kewl! Is it fun even? But, I still think that it's good for Aragorn to lose...

[LotR_Girl]

it would be c:cool::cool:l if he looses! muhahahaha...

[Oren]

Exactly my point. Aragorn is all tough and strong that nobody could beat him. So when he lost, to a Girl might I add, it's kewl. And ya I understand the sneaking thing, but that would make him more alert, even if it is a friend or..ya. I mean any one of the FOTR could've stood up and killed him and he prob. would have been ready...

[Legolas_lover12]

ok, arwen sneaking up on him didn't bother me. he wasn't paying attention and he had a lot on his mind. frodo, the ring, gettting the kingsfoil.................etc, etc, etc.
and i haven't seen any trailers, my stupid comp won't let me see them. well, i saw half of one. but i couldn't see the other half, which, surprisingly enough, was the half with the eowyn/aragorn thing. darn.
.................................................. ..............................................

[Lorien]

Rule No.1 : You do not consider the girl you're kissing to be a threat to your life.:D
Rule 2: You do not consider a girl who gives of subtle hints that she's crushing on you to be a threat either.

[Legolas_lover12]

poor aragorn. he gets swords at his throat cuz he's just too sexy!!!:D

[Amichi]

Have any of you ever read Piers Anthony's series on the Incarnations? Or perhaps, as an alternative, you've read both 'Ender's Game' and 'Ender's Shadow'. If you have, it'll help to clarify what I'm trying to say, here.

Let's look at the LOTR story, for a moment, as a true-to-life tale, told from the viewpoint of the great bard Tolkien, as passed on to him by Frodo Baggins, with information and tales compiled from his companions in the fellowship... aged with time and fogged by memory. Do you think that this tale... this true tale... would be an exact document of what happened? Is it likely that none of the fellowship members would have exaggerated as they told Frodo's tale... is it likely that Frodo himself, telling this tale to the bard Tolkien, would have told the truth completely, without embellishing the facts?

An example, if you will... which would sound better, if you were telling of your flight from the ringwraiths as you slowly died?

"There I was, in pain and nearly spent... but I mustered up courage enough to defy those foul Nazgul!"

or...

"I was passed out and weak, crying for my mother and flopping bonelessly across the back of my rescuer's saddle."

My point is... different people will have different memories of events, even if they were both present and both viewing the exact same thing. People also have the tendency to exaggerate, embellish, adjust, and alter their stories to make themselves look better. On the same token, authors (journalists come to mind) often twist events enough to make them more juicy.. leaving items out to make the tale more interesting while maybe injecting some extra embellishment to make the tale more believable, or more epic.

What does this have to do with LOTRx3? Well... instead of looking at it like a massacring of Tolkien's work, why not look at it as the interpretation of the tale of the fellowship, as written by the pretty decent bard Jackson. Sure, there are differences... sure, he left things out, he added some things, he tried to make his tale more interesting... but isn't that what all authors do?

I like the movie. I like the books. I know there are differences in the implementation of the story, but the point gets across in both of them... mainly... "Underdogs with nary a chance in tartarus take on the Near Ultimate Evil in hopes of freeing their world from its grip once and for all."

But that's just my penny and a half. ;-)

[Talimon]

I completely agree with your main point, at least in one respect: LotR is myth. Myth is never about the details. Its roots lie in a deep oral tradition, and that guarantees that details will be changed depending both on the storyteller and his audience. The point of the fireside tale is to both entertain and move those who experience it, while at the same time relating certain universal themes and messages. With FotR we are fortunate enough to have had the themes and messages from the book maintained. But more importantly, the vast majority of the audience would agree that it was both entertaining and moving. That is the scale by which I judge the movie, for that is the standard with which I believe PJ created the movies.

At one point or another PJ said that one his influences in both writing and directing these films was Braveheart. Having seen FotR I can see exactly where that comes into place. When Braveheart was released I remember many criticizing it for it's lack of historical accuracy. They missed the whole point of the film. It was about Scotish myth. The historical accuracy was completely irrelevant. It's aim wasn't to give an accurate portrayal of William Wallace and his times. It was to bring to life an old Scotish tale. Mel Gibson himself said that his goal was to make the cinematic equivalent of a fireside tale. In that sense he made an incredible movie.

I know we have all grown up on LotR being "history", and that such history shouldn't be altered. Indeed the whole fantasy/D&D culture has become overly obsessed with details. I'm not against these, and thank god Tolkien included them in bulk. But their role in the books, above anything else, is to engross us in Middle-Earth, and convince us that it exists. In movies such ends can be reached using much different means. Using the the power of music combined with detailed sets, costumes, and good acting, these details become far less necessary emotionaly. We can become engrossed without them, and as such these details become much more trivial.


That's basically where my argument stands in terms of defending the movies from critics claiming that they don't stick to the book.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
When Braveheart was released I remember many criticizing it for it's lack of historical accuracy. They missed the whole point of the film. It was about Scotish myth. The historical accuracy was completely irrelevant. It's aim wasn't to give an accurate portrayal of William Wallace and his times. It was to bring to life an old Scotish tale. Mel Gibson himself said that his goal was to make the cinematic equivalent of a fireside tale. In that sense he made an incredible movie.

However, when you're dealing with something so far in the past, who's to say what was real and what was not? And who's to really know what details occured when and how they did? With such ambiguity, one can embellish the facts and create a myth out of truth. I would classify Braveheart with what was done with Johnny Depp's "From Hell". Incredible embellishments with Jack the Ripper, to the point of making what has proven to be a feeble suspect into the actual Jack the Ripper. However, being it so far back, there is much that we don't know that the director of "From Hell" has created his own story with the few facts that were given. In my opinion, he can't be faulted for that.

LoTR, however, was created in tact as it was. There was no oral tradition to skew and misinterpret or reinvent. That argument is irrelevant and cannot be compared as a "fireside tale". PJ was not making a movie off of legend, but an adaptation of a written epic. Big difference. All of this sounds like more mumbo jumbo to justify a director who speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

Originally posted by Talimon
I know we have all grown up on LotR being "history", and that such history shouldn't be altered. Indeed the whole fantasy/D&D culture has become overly obsessed with details. I'm not against these, and thank god Tolkien included them in bulk. But their role in the books, above anything else, is to engross us in Middle-Earth, and convince us that it exists. In movies such ends can be reached using much different means. Using the the power of music combined with detailed sets, costumes, and good acting, these details become far less necessary emotionaly. We can become engrossed without them, and as such these details become much more trivial.

You're making a gratuitous assumption that there is a dichotomy between details and making an engrossing film. Actually, Hollywood is becoming even MORE detailed to create such an authentic ambiance for the exact reason of making a film engrossing. A detailed and mature plot is just as important as the bangs and thrills. PJ could have done both and made not only a visually stunning film, but a very mature and deep film as well. And you're contradicting yourself as far as PJ is concerned. This is what I don't understand. He goes through the painstaking detail of 250 000 links of chain mail because he wants it to be Tolkien authentic, yet he replaces Tolkien's mature and thought provoking dialogue with "Let's go hunt some orc"....? Where is the logic in that?

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Thorin


LoTR, however, was created in tact as it was. There was no oral tradition to skew and misinterpret or reinvent. That argument is irrelevant and cannot be compared as a "fireside tale". PJ was not making a movie off of legend, but an adaptation of a written epic. Big difference. All of this sounds like more mumbo jumbo to justify a director who speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

You're missing my point. What I'm saying is that LotR, the tale, is more then just a written epic. To return to the Braveheart example, there is plenty of reliable historical information about William Wallace and Scotish rebellion. Had Gibson chosen to he could have created a much more historical film, delving much deeper into the politics of "Scotish nobles", and the hierarchy of the times. For example, we know that Wallace didn't "single-handedly" lead any rebellion, and that the Queen he supposedly meets on several occasions was only 10 years old when he died.

But such facts are changed, and as such history becomes myth. I already gave the reasons for why they are changed. And I think these reasons are as relevant, if not more relevant, for LotR. PJ is telling this tale in both a different medium and to a different audience. And I think that such changes as were made, given the context of the book and the motivations of the author, are perfect.



You're making a gratuitous assumption that there is a dichotomy between details and making an engrossing film. Actually, Hollywood is becoming even MORE detailed to create such an authentic ambiance for the exact reason of making a film engrossing. A detailed and mature plot is just as important as the bangs and thrills. PJ could have done both and made not only a visually stunning film, but a very mature and deep film as well. And you're contradicting yourself as far as PJ is concerned. This is what I don't understand. He goes through the painstaking detail of 250 000 links of chain mail because he wants it to be Tolkien authentic, yet he replaces Tolkien's mature and thought provoking dialogue with "Let's go hunt some orc"....? Where is the logic in that?

I agree 100% with you on that point. What I don't agree with is people claiming that the plot is "cheapened" because a certain charachter doesn't call a flood, or another charachter who serves absolutely no role is cut. The vast majority of PJ critics claim that the essence of the plot lies in incredibly petty details, and thats something I can't agree with. Also, when you say a "detailed and mature plot", I hope you don't mean that the former is necessary for the latter. Details don't make a mature plot, at least not single handedly. And there is a big difference between having charachter detail and plot detail. I am all for charachter detail. But plot detail, if used excessivley, becomes like dust. It is so detailed and broken down that it gets in your eyes and you can't see the tale for anything else. When I say that the book is detailed I mean that in terms of the excess of place names, history, and minute references. I see these as being trivial in a film.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
I am all for charachter detail. But plot detail, if used excessivley, becomes like dust. It is so detailed and broken down that it gets in your eyes and you can't see the tale for anything else. When I say that the book is detailed I mean that in terms of the excess of place names, history, and minute references. I see these as being trivial in a film.

But this is why I feel PJ is contradicting and I don't feel his changes can be justified on these points. You say that details (i.e. names, places, dates) are not really important as in making FoTR a good movie. PJ cuts out characters like Glorfindel to avoid confusion and unnecessary baggage in the film, and doesn't include the details in depth to avoid more confusion or having be bogged down for the audience....However, he has Gandalf at the bridge of Moria saying "Flame of Anor" WHAT THE HECK IS ANOR??? (I know this, but you see my point). He neglects to put in solid minor characters to avoid confusion yet sticks this in out of nowhere and confuses the heck out of the non-Tolkien audience. No explanation. Nothing. I think more meaningful detail could have been added elsewhere that added more to the story and explained a few things in depth.

I just feel that PJ has contradicted himself left and right according to your arguments, Talimon. I don't feel that his changes can be justified by these things.

[ReadWryt]

Here is my prediction about how this whole thing will end up playing out. Once the movies have all been released Jackson is going to claim that New Line insisted that he add bunches of Arwen and stuff to the film, and that after the backlash from the people on the Internet he toned down her presence and changed things in the second and third films, but until he is done with his contract with them he is smart enough not to start saying things like this yet and may not get to say them for a while if he makes "The Hobbit".

[Legolas_lover12]

well, i haden't read the books b4 i saw the movie. i read them right afterwards though. but anyway, "flame of arnor" didn't confuse me a bit. in fact, i pretty much just ignored it. but, what is the "flame of arnor"?? cuz i don't know.

[Parrot]

Wrote this before reading previous post....

..and confuses the heck out of the non-Tolkien audience.

I seriously doubt that this really confuses the non-Tolkien audience, in that, though the meaning is not clear, it’s meaning is not important to what is actually occurring onscreen, which is an obviously bad dude trying to ruin an otherwise enjoyable spelunk. I would even go so far as to even suggest that most of the “non-Tolkien”s probably forgot that line as soon as it was uttered. The whole “Flame of Anor (Udûn)” thing is handled largely the same way in the book with no more expansion about what the Balrog is or where it comes from until later. PJ probably felt he was throwing the purists a bone by including this arcane reference that would mean something only to them, but still you take him out to the woodshed. Kinda like the guy can’t win even when he tries to stay true and “pay homage” to the book.

This is also beside the fact that the whole story of Gandalf’s fall and resurrection has yet to completely play out and we don’t really know what might be included by way of explanation about the Balrog.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Parrot
The whole “Flame of Anor (Udûn)” thing is handled largely the same way in the book with no more expansion about what the Balrog is or where it comes from until later. PJ probably felt he was throwing the purists a bone by including this arcane reference that would mean something only to them, but still you take him out to the woodshed. Kinda like the guy can’t win even when he tries to stay true and “pay homage” to the book.

But that's the whole point I'm trying to make, Parrot. Talimon and others defend PJ's changes by saying, "He is not trying to make a true adaptation, but a good movie." If that is the case, why throw inane references out that really adds nothing to the movie or explains things like the "flame of Anor", the three trolls from The Hobbit, and a shot of Gil-Galad at the beginning and yet change blatant dialogue and characters?

Does PJ think that these little "tidbits" will appease the purists? Give me a break. As a purist, I would rather have PJ stay truer to the characters and dialogue that was written, rather than "toss" me a minute detail that even a purist wouldn't miss. What a contradiction you all are making him out to be. "I'm not trying to make a good adaptation, just a good movie. Hmmm, I think we need to add one more link of chainmail to the 249 999 that are already there, not that we're trying to make anything authentic, of course. Oh yes, let's throw in a reference to the three trolls that virtually nobody will catch the first time around. That ought to make the zealot fans happy....Liv, get on your horse for the Ford scene, for crying out loud! Geez! Are you a warrior princess or not?!!"

[Parrot]

Fair enough, except I think the question of things like chain-mail are a separate issue in regards to making the film "visually" authentic and or believable regardless of whether it follows the book.

[Legolas_lover12]

i think we r all making way too big of a deal outta this. i mean, will all of u tolkien purists complaining here really make a difference??? will it change the way the first movie was done??? will it change what PJ id doing with the second and third movies?? no it will not. so forget it. but i guess some ppl just have to have something to complain about.....................:rolleyes:

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Legolas_lover12
i think we r all making way too big of a deal outta this. i mean, will all of u tolkien purists complaining here really make a difference??? will it change the way the first movie was done??? will it change what PJ id doing with the second and third movies?? no it will not. so forget it. but i guess some ppl just have to have something to complain about.....................:rolleyes:

We have the right to complain and discuss. The purpose of doing so, in expressing our likes and dislikes is free speech and a chance to compare opinions with other fans. It is not some sort of political platform. Do you honestly think that we think our discussion is going to change anything in PJ's or NLC's agenda? You obviously don't understand what a discussion forum is about, apparently.

Believe it or not, Legolas Lover, it is about more then just why Aragorn is so hot and the joys of wanting to be the lover of Legolas, like that will change Orlando Bloom and Viggo's attitude towards adoring fans such as yourself. :rolleyes:

[Legolas_lover12]

i know u have the right to discuss this. i'm just tired of seeing all these threads. and i also have the right to say that i don't like it. not that it will do any good. just me stating my opinion on this whole thing.

believe it or not, legolas lover, it is about more than just why aragorn is soo hott and the joys of being the lover of legolas,like that will change orlando bloom and viggo's attitude towards adoring fans such as yourself.:rolleyes:

well, how to respond to that....................................let's see, the word DUH comes to mind. as in DUH it is about more than that. DUH there are other things to discuss. and i do talk about things besides legolas and aragorn. and DUH it won't change their attitude towards me.

you obviously don't understand what a discussion forum is about, apparently.

well, let's see, it is a place to discuss things. but just as you can discuss how PJ "ruining" the movie bugs you, i can discuss how you complaining about the movie bugs me. see??

[Thorin]

will it change what PJ is doing with the second and third movies?? no it will not. so forget it.

Hmmm....Does that sound like the simple voicing of the opinion that you don't like our complaining? Not likely. You are telling us what we should (or shouldn't) be talking about based on the illogical assumption that we can't do anything about it. State that you don't like it and move on. Don't tell us what we can and cannot say. Your opinion and full, undying support of the movie is welcome here just as my complaints are. However, if you do not like to see discussion on the good and bad parts of the movie, maybe you should stay out of the movie forums where the good and bad, the supporters and the complainers meet to voice there opinions....Pretty simple. Don't like it, leave. This isn't a one sided opinion forum here....Expect different opinions and take them or leave them.

[Legolas_lover12]

that was my opinion. that u should forget it. i knew u weren't going to. but i said it anyway. and these threads are everywhere. i try to ignore them. but sometimes i caome just for spoilers to TTT and get mad.

[Talimon]

But that's the whole point I'm trying to make, Parrot. Talimon and others defend PJ's changes by saying, "He is not trying to make a true adaptation, but a good movie." If that is the case, why throw inane references out that really adds nothing to the movie or explains things like the "flame of Anor", the three trolls from The Hobbit, and a shot of Gil-Galad at the beginning and yet change blatant dialogue and characters?


You are misunderstanding my original comment, Thorin, and I really wish that I had the exact quote from PJ. Next time you visit the bookstore look for one of the film-guides. It's on one of the last pages, the quote I'm talking about. I never said making a good adaptation wasn't a priority. It's just not the highest priority. The point is that when it ultimately comes down to making decisions, and PJ must choose between the adaptation and the movie aspects, he'll take the movie. I think one of the many perfect examples of this comes in the form of him editing out 20-30 minutes from the theatrical release. Now it is obvious that fans of the books would want as much material as possible. But for the good of the movie itself, 3 1/2 hours is too long. That's where such decisions come into place. And RW is right, New Line probably had a lot to do with it all as well.

If I have any goal in all of these discussions it's not to sell PJ's movie but rather to clarify the motives behind creating the movies. I think a lot of the disagreement is due to the fact that the two camps see the movie for something different. I'm actually dying in anticipation for the Extended DVD. I think a lot of the different arguments we've been making regarding PJ's motives and goals will be clarified thanks to the abundance of extra material and commentary tracks.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
I never said making a good adaptation wasn't a priority. It's just not the highest priority. The point is that when it ultimately comes down to making decisions, and PJ must choose between the adaptation and the movie aspects, he'll take the movie.

Yeah, but Tal, once again, you're assuming that a good adaptation and a good movie are incompatible. A good adaptation that follows the book word for word, event for event, would obviously be impossible (though I think, if done well, would make a heck of a series!) But there were things in this movie that could have been closer to the book and still been as effective (maybe more). These changes were blatant variations from the book with really no purpose except the director wanted to change it. Please tell me how the excellent dialogue of Tolkien being replaced by lines such as "I'll have at you, Longshanks", "Nobody tosses a dwarf", and "Lets go hunt some orc", can be praised as differing adaptation made into a good move when the original dialogue was ten times better? Couldn't the more difficult dialogue that people say wouldn't work in a movie
(Which I don't believe. Many successful movies with more archaic language proves that wrong) have at least been paraphrased and still been true to the book? PJ's priority should have been making a great adaptation and tweaking this here and there to satisfy some of the more cinematic elements. I will admit, for the most part, he did just that. However, some of the gratuitous changes prove otherwise. And where they happened, they prove disasterous (IMO of course!)


Originally posted by Talimon
I'm actually dying in anticipation for the Extended DVD. I think a lot of the different arguments we've been making regarding PJ's motives and goals will be clarified thanks to the abundance of extra material and commentary tracks.

I am under the understanding that the extra footage is mostly (if not all) concerning Lorien. That would help make the scenes of Lorien and Galadriel (and boy, do they need help in this film!) more fleshed out and properly developed which is great, but it doesn't help the rest of the movie that need extra footage bad. The place where I would really have liked to see extra footage is the trip between the Shire and Rivendell. That to me was the most hideous of time compression changes.

[Mrs. Maggott]

My point in this whole Eowyn/Aragorn duel thing is that Tolkien's Aragorn would never have drawn a weapon on any woman, let alone the beloved niece of his HOST, the King of Rohan. It wouldn't happen, it shouldn't happen, but like so many other things in Jackson's LOTR, it DOES happen. Then the Director goes and puts the icing on his cake and has the lady WIN! Gee! And this is the "man" who is going to be King! Thank God the orcs he runs into aren't female because he sure doesn't have much luck with the ladies!

Oh, my......:rolleyes:

[I.am.Smeagol]

Tolkien's Aragorn would never have drawn a weapon on any woman, let alone the beloved niece of his HOST, the King of Rohan.


Indeed!

[Grond]

***Notice Notice Notice - - - Lots of manual typing will ensue***
from The Lord of the Rings - The Official Movie Guide by Brian Sibley, excerpts from chapter From Book to Script
...As the process of turning Tolkien's book into screenplays developed, the filmmakers increasingly drew on the original text. "When we first started writing these scripts," says Peter Jackson, 'we assumed that we would have to simplify and modernize the languages, because that was what a modern film would require. On the contrary, however, with each subsequent draft of the screenplays, we have gone further and further into Tolkien's language, because it is beautiful and evocative and , when spoken by good actors, comes alive in a way that is really fresh and exciting."

Nevertheless, cuts had to be made and scenes amalgamated or moved to create necessary dramatic tensions. Dialogue was sometimes borrowed from one part of the book to provide lines for a character in a scene somewhere else, and occasionally new dialogue had to be written, "in the style of Tolkien." One or two new characters in the original book have not, finally, found their way onto the screen, while others, notably the few female characters, have been given stronger roles in the film than they have in the original text.

Throughout the entire process of bringing this world famous book to the cinema, Peter Jackson has kept one overriding principle in mind: "My primary job has been to make three good movies, as opposed to making three movies that are totally faithful to the books. Nevertheless, I fully accept that I have a responsiblity not to disappoint those many people who love the books. Which is why we have really tried not to lose anything that we feel is key or important to the books and why, almost without exception, all those things that are memorable and vivid from reading the books are there in the movies.Peter, you captured the world of Middle-earth beautifully in your adaptation... you just changed the story a tad too much for me. But, we all have opinions and mine is just one of em. BTW, is my extended DVD of the FotR coming in on 11/13 or 11/14??? ;)

[Talimon]

11/11, Veterans day. You'll have the day off to watch it :) (assuming you go to the store and buy it). If you pre-order you'll most likely have to wait a couple of days at the very least for it to ship. Though it is true that some places ship thier products the moment they arrive, thus resulting in folks getting thier DVD's before the street date. Personally I'm not taking risks here. :) I'm just going to head down to the store and buy it the day it is released. It's Veterans day, besides.

My point in this whole Eowyn/Aragorn duel thing is that Tolkien's Aragorn would never have drawn a weapon on any woman, let alone the beloved niece of his HOST, the King of Rohan. It wouldn't happen, it shouldn't happen, but like so many other things in Jackson's LOTR, it DOES happen. Then the Director goes and puts the icing on his cake and has the lady WIN! Gee! And this is the "man" who is going to be King!

Mrs. Maggot, for your own good, please don't go that low. You are beginning to do what purists were doing around this time last year: cirtiquing PJ's movie based on the trailer. The trailer doesn't tell us anything. It's a quick shot of Eowyn facin Aragorn. We have no idea how the scene develops, how it works out, what happens... You are basically going out and looking for wood to throw into your fire. Let it be, for the moment. We can talk all you want about TTT when TTT is released. Until then, don't get too passionate.

[Mrs. Maggott]

This wasn't a "trailer"; it was a well documented and accepted site which DISCUSSED the scenario (among many other changes in TTT), gave pros and cons for each and a probability scale which for this scenario was five out of five. I was VERY careful not to just accept scuttlebut. Indeed, I was so concerned about this particular scenario, I took every possible care that I would not fall prey to mere speculation.

Frankly, my computer is so old that I don't get trailers very well so I did not depend upon a few moments of graphics. This whole scenario was well discussed including the blurb "she beats the pants off him".

If that's "low", the fault is Mr. Jackson's, not mine.

[Grond]

:( No one even thanked me for all that manual typing. No comments, no critique on what I thought was the exact passage our good Talimon wanted brought forward. Is my post not there??? I know it is. Talimon, what is your response to the quotes you apparently wanted brought forward? ;)

[Ariana Undomiel]

Ok, the part with Eowyn fighting with Aragorn is not as serious as it first appears. If look closely Aragorn has a totally nonchalant look on his face and it appears that he thinks this woman is just playing around. Notice he is fighting with his dagger. Eowyn means business though as you can see when she gets the upper hand to Aragorn's surprise. Also I believe that that scene with Arwen kissing Aragorn is a flash back. There may be a few of those in the two towers. So don't go panicing yet.

~Ariana

[Mrs. Maggott]

Here's where Jackson's "vision" not only differs from Tolkien's but is positively diametric to it. Tolkien's Aragorn was a mythic masculine figure who would no more have drawn a weapon on a woman than he would have dressed up as a drag queen. Jackson's Aragorn is a modern, fallible, fool-around type who would probably do something as foolish and discourteous as this. The problem is that those who defend this particular "scene", don't really understand the problem with it! After all, he really didn't try or want to hurt her! She was just a little stronger and better than he supposed and he just got "caught short"! What's the prob?!

Well, that's fine in the "modern" understanding of the male-female relationship, but it is TOTALLY AND ABSOLUTELY ALIEN to the relationship that existed between men and women in Tolkien's world. Therefore, no MAN - never mind one of Aragorn's stature - would have ever CONSIDERED drawing a weapon against a female opponent. It would have been as foreign to them as, well, "dressing in drag".

Jackson has "updated" LOTR; that is, he has changed Tolkien's mythic characters to the type of ordinary guys and gals we are used to seeing on the screen today. Role reversal is fine and a total lack of common courtesy towards women is not only unknown but positively politically correct. There was a previous thread somewhere about a p.c. LOTR. Well, Jackson has in fact produced a p.c. LOTR and most of those who are younger don't find any problem with it - in fact, they don't even see it!

[Grond]

Mrs. M, I appreciate your viewpoint but must point out the Eowyn was indeed attacked by a man. A dead man enslaved to a Dark Lord... but a man none the less. Tolkien's knightly good Men might not attack a woman, but his world was also filled with vile and wretched characters who would have slit her throat without a second thought.

Remember Lotho!!!! ;)

[Mrs. Maggott]

I must have been particularly obtuse when I posted this point! I, of course, meant decent, chivalrous men like Aragorn, not men in general, dead OR alive. After all, women have been attacked by men since there have been women and men!

I was merely pointing out that ARAGORN would not have drawn a weapon on a woman. For heaven sake, he wouldn't even allow Eowyn to accompany him on the Paths of the Dead. He specifically said (in the book, at least) that he would have to ask permission of her uncle the King and her brother before he could even consider her request - and he could not wait for their return.

I'm sorry if I was not sufficiently clear about my meaning. I certainly did not mean that EVERY man in Middle Earth would forebear attacking a woman - but, frankly, I would have thought that it wouldn't be necessary to make that point under the circumstances! :rolleyes:

[Ariana Undomiel]

Mrs. Maggott, I agree that it some of the chivalry has been knocked down a bit and that is sad, but another misfortune is that in this day and age, men don't really know what chivalry is any more. So very few people will probably even notice. Besides I don't think that Aragorn was attacking Eowyn at all. It seemed to me that she was in some major rage about something or other and she was attacking him. Aragorn reacted by whipping out his knife to weild off her blow, and didn't expect her to go any further. Obviously she had other plans. So perhaps it isn't really Aragorn's fault. LOL. Or perhaps we should wait till the movie comes out so we can see the entire scene in context.

~Ariana

[Mrs. Maggott]

And, alas, my dear, those who DO know - and have attempted to practice the art - would soon find that their most rabid detractors were WOMEN who perceived their gentle and manly behavior (that, after all, is what the term "GENTLE -MAN" means!) was somehow "sexist" and even constituted "sexual harassment"!

Several years ago, a very prestigious news magazine ran a HUGE story with a cover-filling headline noting that there ARE differences between men and women!!!! Heavens!!! What a blow to the army of androgenous anti-males!! I begin to sympathize with Mr. Jackson. Perhaps he could NOT present Professor Tolkien's Aragorn. To begin with, nobody would understand him - and then, nobody would believe him and finally, nobody would be able to stand him since after being in the dark for so long, such a bright light would be impossible to bear. It's sad, really, that so many people are only able to tolerate these great mythic Souls on the printed page. In "real life", they are simply too great to endure. :(

[Ariana Undomiel]

I quite agree with you, Mrs. Maggott. One of the main faults for the loss of the true gentleman is the idea that women go to extremes to prove that they must be treated as equals and they take offense over such things as honoring woman by holding the door, drawing up a chair, treating a woman as the more tender of the two sexes. I would love it if there were guys out there who would go back to the days of chivalry and gentlemanly courtesy. Although, in defense of my guy friends, they are making an attempt.

~Ariana

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
This wasn't a "trailer"; it was a well documented and accepted site which DISCUSSED the scenario (among many other changes in TTT), gave pros and cons for each and a probability scale which for this scenario was five out of five. I was VERY careful not to just accept scuttlebut. Indeed, I was so concerned about this particular scenario, I took every possible care that I would not fall prey to mere speculation.


I know the site you are talking about, but it's not as if that site gets it's info from PJ. If you'll notice, they list sources, and for that particular scene their only source is the trailer. Now, having seen the trailer, I can garauntee that the word "fight" is being thrown around much too loosely. The trailer shows exactly one thing: Eowyn parring Aragorns sword. Do thier swords meet? Yes. Would I call that fighting, and go so far as to assume one person attacked the other? No, that is foolish and is in my opinion akin to what folks were saying about Arwen fighting the Nazgul. You can't know the circumstances of the scene. And I hope you aren't serious about trusting everything you read on the net, esspecially when it comes to PJ's movie.

[PRH]

This might shed some new light on this whole issue:

http://img-nex.theonering.net/movies/WB-Edoras.mov

It's a video showing more of the "big duel" between Aragorn and Eowyn. Turns out it's all a MAJOR flirting scene.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Well, of course, Tolkien was inclined in the beginning to favor Eowyn for Aragorn rather than Arwen, but changed his mind at the end. It is understandable that the young, impressionable maiden, stunted and damaged by the terrible circumstances surrounding her uncle's reign would be drawn to a strange, mysterious and extremely powerful man like Aragorn. The problem here is, that under no circumstances would he permit even the slightest hint that might encourage her attention since he is already betrothed and in love with Arwen. Oh, well, yes, of course I mean TOLKIEN'S Aragorn.

Jackson having made Aragorn into a vacillating chap inclined to meekly take orders from a rather overbearing elf woman who, we are all constantly reminded, is so much older and better than he, might not be nearly so delicate in his sensibilities regarding a young woman who is about 60 years his junior and given to erotic hero worship. No, I can easily see that Mr. Jackson might get quite a "ride" out of the entire situation! Now whether Eowyn does as well is anybody's guess! Perhaps the good Director will leave his audience to make up their own minds about the matter. But, heck, Eowyn doesn't have much of a chance given what Jackson is already doing to her other lover! Poor girl.

[Thorin]

OH PLEEEEEEZE!!!! What the heck is PJ doing?? What the heck is Viggo talking about??? "She is the one that Aragon should be with. There is a great affection between them." AAAAAAHHH!!!!!

The whole sword fighting scene is at least put into perspective with this clip, so Maggot can at least have her fears put to rest with the whole chivalry thing. This is bad because they are really blowing up this whole love triangle thing. As a matter of fact, this "triangle" was mentioned (and loved :rolleyes: ) by one of the female reviewers of TTT of being a part of the movie.

Trust PJ to distort everything Tolkien.:rolleyes:

[Mrs. Maggott]

Alas, I could hear the sound, but I could not receive the pictures. However, I realize that their "duel" was not real, but it still would have been extremely unchivalrous to have drawn not only on a member of your host's family, but a woman as well.

Yet, in a way, what is conveyed - at least by what is said and what I have read from those who have seen it (a "little flirtation") is even - God help us - more disturbing since it contains a sexual element that Tolkien's Aragorn would have avoided with even more distaste than a failure of chivalry.

But apparently, it is another nudge, nudge, wink, wink to the audience, a little titillation at the expense of the myth. Well, I for one expected as much. Isn't it sad how the current culture has to demean and debase anything noble and pure. Perhaps God was kind to Professor Tolkien in that he has not lived to see the day when Western culture has become so, well, orcish.

[PRH]

I think you need to upgrade your version of Quicktime so you can see what you're talking about before further comment.

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/

[Talimon]

MM, let me assure you that she is not the one who draws the sword, and there is no anger on either side. Indeed, this makes everything make so much more sense. As I said before, don't trust information from commercials. ;)

[Phee]

Originally posted by Thorin
OH PLEEEEEEZE!!!! What the heck is PJ doing?? What the heck is Viggo talking about??? "She is the one that Aragon should be with. There is a great affection between them." AAAAAAHHH!!!!!

Actually, what Viggo says is: "She's very different from Arwen. You could say she might even be more "right" as a person for him to be with. There's a great affection between them."

I don't think he's trying to say Aragorn should dump Arwen for Eowyn, or anything of the sort. If you think about it logically, yeah, Aragorn and Eowyn are more alike than Aragorn and Arwen. Not to mention that he wouldn't have to worry about someone giving up their immortality for him if he'd been with Eowyn instead. It would have been easier if Aragorn met Eowyn first and fell in love with her instead.

And as for the "affection", well I feel "affection" for my little brother but that doesn't mean I wanna jump in bed with him. There are many different types of "affection", and I think it's a fair statement that Aragorn could have had some type of affection for Eowyn...just not in a romantic sense.

And as I suspected the big Aragorn/Eowyn "fight scene" wasn't actually a fight scene at all. He just whipped out his knife to prevent her from lopping him in half because she was playing with a sword and didn't realise he was there.

[Aerin]

Wow, I haven't seen this thread o' mine in a while....

As for the chivalry/flirting thing... I am going to be thoroughly disappointed and disgusted if it's a fight like the "fencing lesson" in the Mask of Zorro. As has been pointed out numerous times, the intention of that fight was not for Elena to retrieve her father's papers from Zorro; rather, it was intended to show off as much skin on Catherine Zeta-Jones as possible. I mean, what real swordsman (or woman) would allow their opponent to cut their clothes off? :rolleyes:

I agree with Mrs. Maggott's last post. Why Aragorn would walk up and interrupt Eowyn's sword practice was not even rude, it was extremely flirtacious. And the atmosphere they created was anything but Aragorn remaining noble and pure in regard to Eowyn....

He just whipped out his knife to prevent her from lopping him in half because she was playing with a sword and didn't realise he was there.

As for that, a swordswoman as skilled as Eowyn supposedly is in PJ's creation (note the distinction ;)), she would have seen him, at the very latest, out of the corner of her eye and stopped her swing.

As a side note, doesn't Aragorn seem a bit like a push-over? I saw part of the extended edition today at a friend's house, and I was shocked at the scene where Aragorn and Galadriel are talking about Arwen. "I would not have her give up her immortality... I would have her to go Valinor"...
Aragorn, in the movie, was perfectly fine with Arwen telling him she wants to become mortal for his sake; and was backtracking with Galadriel, saying he didn't want her to give up the Undying Lands for him... and what next? Falling for Eowyn while she's there, but the minute Arwen comes (doing Lord-knows-what), he's all for her again? Isn't that a bit fickle?

[Fimbrethil]

Arwen from greater lineage than Aragorn? Unless I have completely missed Aragorn's entire story, he's descended from Isildur, you know, the guy who defeated Sauron?
Comparing the lineage of Elves to the lineage of Aragorn is a little difficult, unless you are comparing the deeds of their forebears.


Just to interrupt the discussion ( I doubt the fellow will read this but I need to say it), Arwen and Aragorn are from, well, the same lineage in a slightly weird sense.

Isildur may have defeated sauron, but he is in turn descended from Elros, the first king of the Numenoreons. Elros happened to be (gasp) Elrond's twin brother. Elrond being Arwen's father. Undiluted blood perhaps? Not to mention Luthein, Melian, Earendil, Galadriel and...is it Feanor that is Arwens great great uncle or something (I know Galadriel came over the sea with the Noldor....I think...hmm...can't remember...)

[Talimon]

Aragorn, in the movie, was perfectly fine with Arwen telling him she wants to become mortal for his sake; and was backtracking with Galadriel, saying he didn't want her to give up the Undying Lands for him...

He wasn't fine at all with Arwen giving up her immortality. When she gives him the Evenstar, he immediately objects, saying, "You can't give this to me." He never takes her decision lightly, if indeed she has made her decision yet at all.

I agree with Mrs. Maggott's last post. Why Aragorn would walk up and interrupt Eowyn's sword practice was not even rude, it was extremely flirtacious. And the atmosphere they created was anything but Aragorn remaining noble and pure in regard to Eowyn....

It wasn't quite "sword practice", from the clip I saw. I'd describe it as Eowyn "playing-warrior", somewhat fantasizing about being in the midst of battle. She is caught up in her "game", so to speak, and when she turns around to blow a strike Aragorn meets her stroke with his sword. It's not so much him "being-there-and-defending-himself". He is playing along. "Extermely flirtatious"? We'll see.

[Ariana Undomiel]

Ok, I too have seen the clip with Eowyn and her sword practice. It did appear to me that Aragorn, unbeknownst to Eowyn, and come up to watch her and suddenly she moved backward and swung within range of his body so he simply reacted by pulling out his dagger. I don't think he was flirting at all. I personally really like that scene.

- Ariana

[PRH]

Yes, that sounds about right -- Eowyn 'playing warrior' and Aragorn 'playing along.' It was at least somewhat flirtatious to be sure. At least I think so. I can't entirely intrepret that look Aragorn gives while their blades are still touching where he c0cks his head to the side. Is it a 'you're a curious woman' or is it 'you're a lovely woman' or is it 'why the anger? women shouldn't fight!' Or is it a combo of these, or something else? I'm just not sure what that look is meant to say.

There is certainly a little bit more to this scene because we cut from Eowyn holding her blade up to Aragorn's face to Eowyn bent over the trunk she got the sword out of again.

[Ariana Undomiel]

SPOILERSSSSSSSSESSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, the following is a full description of the scene concerning the 'duel' between Aragorn and Eowyn in the Two Towers.

It starts with Eowyn, apparently in the strong hold of Helm's Deep, opening a wooden chest and removing a beautiful sword that is bound by a brown leather scabbard. She then withdraws it with a gleam in her eye and begins to do some practice moves. As she goes along she gets more and more into and then suddenly backing up and swinging round she runs into Aragorn who whips out his knife to keep her from hacking into him. She glares at him and he cocks his head curiously at her saying, "You have some skill with a blade." To prove his statement more than true she skillfully removes her blade from the locked position that he had forced her into. Calmly he gazes at her for a moment and then returns his Lothlorien blade to its sheath. Eowyn breaks out of her 'warrior' mood and returns to the chest while saying, 'The women of my land learned long ago that those who do not wield a sword can still die on one.' Having returned the blade to its shieth she returns it to its chest while saying, 'I do not fear pain or death.'

Aragorn looks at her slightly curious, "What do you fear, my lady?" He asks.

She looks at him with a hard cold face and replys, "A cage. To be left behind bars until uselessness and old age accept them."

Aragorn looks at her with almost a pitying look,"You are the daughter of kings. I do not believe that will be your fate."

The scene ends with Eowyn's gaze softening and it she almost reveals the love that is growing towards him.

I personally did not find this scene in the least flirtatious, but rather a scene where Aragorn is seeing the Lady Eowyn in a new light, and she is falling further in love with him.

- Ariana

[Phee]

PRH, if you click this link (originally posted by Ariana in another thread): http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/1/1039139941
it's a compilation of several scenes from TTT. The last couple minutes of it is more of the Eowyn/Aragorn scene.

[PRH]

Thanks Phee. That certainly answers that. I kind of wish I hadn't watched all those clips, it was almost too much - but they were definitely cool!

[Phee]

I know what you mean. I keep telling myself that I shouldn't watch stuff like that, and I shouldn't read the reviews with major spoilers...but I can't help myself. :p

[Asha'man]

This is a first for me, actually joining a Tolkien-related discussion. :eek: :D

I noticed when I saw this scene on TV the other night, that Eowyn's eyes kinda popped out when she spun around and Aragorn was there to catch her blade. She was obviously surprised at meeting resistance, not to mention the resistance being.....*him*. :rolleyes:

Ash