For those of you who oppose the inclusion of Arwen

[Talimon]

Seeing as how Arwen has been complained about so much, I'd like to ask this one questions: Would you rather have her appear out of nowhere in Return of the King and marry Aragorn? I don't think it's possible to comprehend just how cheesy it would be to have Arwen appear and wed one of the central figures without some sort of explanation. Indeed, were there not a few pages on it in the Appedices I would have to criticize Tolkien on this issue. Hollywood and everything else aside, it just doesn't make sense to not have at least some mention of her before the end. It's a completely logical move to have her introduced, and show her love for Aragorn. If he is to wed her after the whole war has been won, I think it's only proper that we at least see thier relationship develop to some extent.

[Thorin]

I have never opposed the idea of giving Arwen more screen time. I have said that PJ could have created more scenes like the one in Rivendell that would have exposed her to the audience more before she marries Aragorn. That only makes sense from a movie standpoint...It's the way she is portrayed in the scenes she was given that bother me, not that she was given more screen time. What I do oppose is her out of character actions and dialogue that makes her out to be some sort of spell-casting warrior elf who comes in and saves the day while eliminating the actions of 5 other characters who were written that way by Tolkien.

Now, however, because of her grand entrance, PJ needs to include her in that character as much as possible. If he didn't, it would have made less sense to include her then if he had just written her the way Tolkien intended. Now PJ has her in places she doesn't belong (Helm's Deep) and doing things out of character. Give her more time in character like the way Tolkien had her and you would have had no gripes from me.

What kind of Arwen do we have now? Definitely unrecognizable by Tolkien's standards.

[Gamil Zirak]

I agree with Thorin. They could have included more scenes of her and Aragorn together in Rivendell. There's a difference between expanding on a character and then creating a new one. Having Arwen handle the flight to the ford scene shows us nothing of her "true" character. She just looks like a hot chick slash tomboy. Not at all like the fair elven princes she is.

[Talimon]

I have to disagree that she is made out to be an elven-warrior. First of all, she is dead-scared when the Nazgul are chasing her, and secondly, even when she opposes them, it's hardly what I'd call warrior-like. She quickly lowers her sword.

On a technical note, it's very possible that Arwen had the power to flood the ford. She was Elronds daughter, after all, and it could very well be that she had the ability to call the flood. It doesn't justify her doing it, perhaps, but then again it doesn't change her charachter. While we see very little of Arwen in the books, from what we do see I get the impression that Liv Tyler has been very much in charachter with her (the only major exception being her crying by Frodo's side, something I found a just a little forced).

[Arwen]

Originally posted by Talimon
I have to disagree that she is made out to be an elven-warrior. First of all, she is dead-scared when the Nazgul are chasing her, and secondly, even when she opposes them, it's hardly what I'd call warrior-like. She quickly lowers her sword.

On a technical note, it's very possible that Arwen had the power to flood the ford. She was Elronds daughter, after all, and it could very well be that she had the ability to call the flood. It doesn't justify her doing it, perhaps, but then again it doesn't change her charachter. While we see very little of Arwen in the books, from what we do see I get the impression that Liv Tyler has been very much in charachter with her (the only major exception being her crying by Frodo's side, something I found a just a little forced).

Thats how i see it...

[ReadWryt]

On a technical note, it's very possible that Arwen had the power to flood the ford. She was Elronds daughter, after all, and it could very well be that she had the ability to call the flood.

It's very possible that Gandalf could have singlehandedly deafeated Sauron in a one to one fist fight but it's not in his character, would make for bad story telling and both this and Arwen calling forth the flood DO change their character. No place in the book does it say that any elves used incantations to perform magic, and beyond that it never says that the flood was created by magic at all! It changes not only the character of Arwen but of Middle-earth...

And what was this whole "Gee, did she just bring him back to life?" "Let whatever grace I have pass unto him.." wonder healer act?? Would it really have killed the story to have let Frodo stand up to the Nazgul himself in the movie? By shoving Arwen at us Jackson deflates the horrific nature of the Nazgul, removes Frodo's bravery and fortitude in the face of this horror, absolves Elrond of being the master of his domain and commander of the flood and completely skips over Glorfindel while demonstrating an elven maid doing something NO elves do in the book ever...if THAT isn't changing the character of Middle-earth I don't know what is...

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
I have to disagree that she is made out to be an elven-warrior. First of all, she is dead-scared when the Nazgul are chasing her, and secondly, even when she opposes them, it's hardly what I'd call warrior-like. She quickly lowers her sword.

That still doesn't justify her even being there. And if a cheesy "If you want him come and claim him"-wave the sword in the air defiance isn't not being afraid of some of the most frightening things on ME, I don't know what is.....Even Gandalf said Aragorn and Glorfindel (a high elven lord) could not stand against the nine all at once (for fear and strength). Yet here is this warrior elf that is foreign to Tolkien's character doing all that alone....

Originally posted by Talimon
On a technical note, it's very possible that Arwen had the power to flood the ford. She was Elronds daughter, after all, and it could very well be that she had the ability to call the flood. It doesn't justify her doing it, perhaps, but then again it doesn't change her charachter.

Once again as I've said before and ReadWryt has reiterated, there are a lot of possibilities that could occur in a movie. That doesn't make it a true rendition or true to the written characters.
Gandalf could have fought against a Nazgul and levitated. Merry and Pippin could have met up with Gollum first as easily as Sam and Frodo did. Aragorn and Boromir could have gotten in a bit of sword fight for dramatic effect because Boromir didn't like the idea of Aragorn taking the throne of Gondor. Gimli could have easily just balked at Galadriel, being a dwarf and she an elf.

All of these things COULD have happened. But the cold facts are that they DID not...They would have been unacceptable to any fan because despite all the clap-trap I hear from some who say that the book and movie are different and shouldn't be compared, as fans of Tolkien, we expect faithfulness to the written standard from which the movie was made....Why should the Arwen fiasco be anymore acceptable?

[Talimon]

Originally posted by ReadWryt


It's very possible that Gandalf could have singlehandedly deafeated Sauron in a one to one fist fight but it's not in his character, would make for bad story telling and both this and Arwen calling forth the flood DO change their character. No place in the book does it say that any elves used incantations to perform magic, and beyond that it never says that the flood was created by magic at all! It changes not only the character of Arwen but of Middle-earth...

That's completely different, with Gandalf and Sauron. The only difference, as far as the flood being callled in the book and in the movie, is that Arwen called it. Gandalf never fights Sauron, nor does anyone else directly, and as such it can't even be considered. All we are talking about here is who called the flood. Considering that Arwen is Elrond's daughter, I don't see it as that big of a change. As for Elves performing magic, this isn't directly magic. This is Elronds land, protected much in the same way as Tom Bombadils is. When Gandalf and Elrond speak of Rivendell being protected, do you take that to mean purely by force? When Gandalf says to Pippin that no evil things reside in the valley, does that mean that they are kept out by force? Or when they say that Bombadil could hold out long against the dark lord, does that mean that he would actually fight all the orcs? Like Galadriel says to Sam, this is what he'd call magic, though she doesn't understand what he means by that. You're right, magic is never reffered to by those who summon it, but to the hobbits (and thus to us) it is all the same. Having explained in other places why Arwen's role has been expanded, I don't see this small detail as anything drastic. It's complex enough that we've just been introduced to a new charachter. There's no need to start including new ones.

And what was this whole "Gee, did she just bring him back to life?" "Let whatever grace I have pass unto him.." wonder healer act?? Would it really have killed the story to have let Frodo stand up to the Nazgul himself in the movie? By shoving Arwen at us Jackson deflates the horrific nature of the Nazgul, removes Frodo's bravery and fortitude in the face of this horror, absolves Elrond of being the master of his domain and commander of the flood and completely skips over Glorfindel while demonstrating an elven maid doing something NO elves do in the book ever...if THAT isn't changing the character of Middle-earth I don't know what is...

I agree that Frodo should have stood up to the Nazgul, both at the Ford and at Whethertop. But as for Frodo being healed, Gandalf specificly says in the movie that it's been done by the powers of Lord Elrond. Glorfindel is completely trivial for the movie, so I won't even comment on that. Other then Arwen opposing the riders instead of Frodo, the Arwen scenes make the movie much more rounded.

All of these things COULD have happened. But the cold facts are that they DID not...They would have been unacceptable to any fan because despite all the clap-trap I hear from some who say that the book and movie are different and shouldn't be compared, as fans of Tolkien, we expect faithfulness to the written standard from which the movie was made....Why should the Arwen fiasco be anymore acceptable?

I'm not going to argue with opinions such as calling the Arwen scenes a fiasco, but at least realize that this movie's goal is grander then just staying true to the book. You have the right as a fan to shun the changes, but don't expect you cries to be heeded. Peter Jackson's goal isn't to stay absolutely true to the book, only as true as he can while making a good movie.

[My_Precious]

I guess some people (me also) are scared of the idea that the whole Arwen thing could continue onto the TTT and ROTK. We could see Arwen kill the Witchking of Angmar, carry Frodo into Mordor with one arm, and throwing orks aside with the other, battle Gollum near the cracks of Doom, kill Shelob, etc.... It's really hard to concentrate on the whole Ring story, when all we see is Arwen.
:rolleyes:

[Talimon]

I can't speak with ultimate authority, but if what I guess is true, the sole reason Arwen has been included is so that 1) the tale has some sort of love story, and 2) so that it doesn't seem as random when she marries Aragorn in the end.

The reason I don't think she'll fight is because that role has been left for Eowyn. If PJ want's a female charachter to fight, she will fill that role (and stay more accurate to the book while at it). I personally don't get the feeling that she's a very powerful warrior.

[Iséng-Aoibhe]

I have to say i don't oppose the larger role of Arwen in the film than in the book. I agree it would have been extremely confusing had she just appeared slap bang in the third film. However, what i do oppose is the fact we are explicitly told Aragorn is the King. I found that really annoying, certainly hint slightly but not tell us straight away, That's half the suspense in the book! I hope Peter Jackson makes a good fist of Eowyn and her fascination with Aragorn and his title...

[Gamil Zirak]

Iséng-Aoibhe - PJ could have done that without having her take Frodo across the ford. There could have been many scenes of her and Aragorn in Rivendel. In fact, there were scenes of the two together there.

[ReadWryt]

All we are talking about here is who called the flood. Considering that Arwen is Elrond's daughter, I don't see it as that big of a change.

This is a HUGE change if you consider that there is never any reference to Elrond casting a spell or using magic to make the flood...

When Gandalf says to Pippin that no evil things reside in the valley, does that mean that they are kept out by force?

Quote me where is says that it is NOT merely by force and we can talk...

[Parrot]

Clap-Trap! I like that, Clap-Trap! Clap-Trap, that’s pretty good! So it is “Clap-Trap” to assume that a multi-hundred- million-$-blockbuster movie of the new millennium might be aimed at a slightly different audience with slightly different sensibilities and expectations than a, in the beginning rather obscure, somewhat cerebral and esoteric, epic, multi-part, novel written some sixty-odd years earlier? Pre-WW II, pre-cold war, pre-sexual/drug revolution, pre-urban-explosion, pre-MTV, pre-freakin’ Star Wars for cripes sake. Yeah, people have hardly changed in that time-frame (oops, more sarcasm, better get my galoshes).

Some of the rest of us might be tired of all the clap-trap about this being outside the character of Arwen. In my opinion, Arwen in the book is so seriously underdeveloped that we never really get much of a feel at all for her character and as such have no idea what she is or is not capable of. If it is perfectly feasible that a human maiden, Eowyn, in a fit of love and rage, could actually STRIKE A BLOW WITH A SWORD against the leader and most fearsome of the Nazgul, is it really then such a fiasco that a high elf maiden, the child of the great and powerful Elrond, might have some of that same strength to defy them to a MUCH LESSER EXTENT? For Tolkien purists you seem to selling elves pretty short here. Maybe, just maybe, her abilities go a little beyond nice arm candy and banner-sewing? Actually, Glorfindel says something to the effect that even in the house of Elrond there are “few”, not “one”, but “few” who can ride openly against the Nine, but such as there are have gone out. Do we know who these “few” are, and can it be conclusively stated that Arwen was not possibly among them?

Btw, RW, if the flood was not called by magic, what then? A furious, instantaneous, flash flood, with waves in the shape of horses no less (compliments of Gandalf of course), unleashed at precisely the moment all the Nazgul enter the ford; sounds fairly magical to me. But then again, maybe it could have been Carlrond Spacklerfindel the Rivendell (assistant) groundskeeper just happening to water the lawn at the right time, so I could be wrong. Quote us where it is NOT due to magic and we can talk....

P.S. Talimon – You’re fighting a good fight here.

[Captain Sparky]

Many different arguments have been presented and the problem always seems to be looked upon as Arwen herself. Arwen could have been left out of the book & the movie and nobody would ever have noticed.

Therefore, I put it to you that Arwen is not the problem. Liv Tyler is the problem. Liv just doesn't have the ability to pull it off. She does not present a character strong enough to either fight at Helms Deep nor stand up to the Nazgul. Indeed, any time I see her all I can think of is the pouty-faced girl from That Thing You Do.

What this role needs is a Cate Blanchet, or Meryl Streep touch,
an actress able to take on such a strong role. It would not only enhance the Arwen character, but Tolkien's story too.

PJ dropped the ball on this one. Let's hope he doesn't do it again by casting Miranda Otto as Eowyn.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Parrot
Clap-Trap! I like that, Clap-Trap! Clap-Trap, that’s pretty good! So it is “Clap-Trap” to assume that a multi-hundred- million-$-blockbuster movie of the new millennium might be aimed at a slightly different audience with slightly different sensibilities and expectations than a, in the beginning rather obscure, somewhat cerebral and esoteric, epic, multi-part, novel written some sixty-odd years earlier? Pre-WW II, pre-cold war, pre-sexual/drug revolution, pre-urban-explosion, pre-MTV, pre-freakin’ Star Wars for cripes sake. Yeah, people have hardly changed in that time-frame (oops, more sarcasm, better get my galoshes).

And what did PJ exactly do differently to garner a whole new generation that was different from what Tolkien wrote?... Revamped Arwen for any political correct feminists? Please....The story stands on its own merits and that is what has garnered PJ his millions and what is still winning fans as young as 12 to the books that sold millions now as it has sold them in the 1950s.

Originally posted by Parrot
. If it is perfectly feasible that a human maiden, Eowyn, in a fit of love and rage, could actually STRIKE A BLOW WITH A SWORD against the leader and most fearsome of the Nazgul, is it really then such a fiasco that a high elf maiden, the child of the great and powerful Elrond, might have some of that same strength to defy them to a MUCH LESSER EXTENT? For Tolkien purists you seem to selling elves pretty short here.

Hmmm....Lets not forget an important thing.....IT NEVER HAPPENED! You can justify all you want on something that never occured in the book COULD have happened, but that is useless assumption that has every bearing on whether the movie is a proper rendition of the book. It either follows the book or not....Arwen's character was not Tolkien's, what she did was not Tolkien's, the changes she made were not according to Tolkien....

Call it for what it is: A fabricated, straying away from Tolkien by Jackson to claim a bit of his own merit on the epic he claims to be staying so true to....Quit trying to justify it according to Tolkien.....

Originally posted by Parrot
But then again, maybe it could have been Carlrond Spacklerfindel the Rivendell (assistant) groundskeeper just happening to water the lawn at the right time, so I could be wrong.

What? You never read that part? He's one of the best characters! Good ol' Spacker! :D

[Parrot]

I had forgotten that part Thorin, "Die wraith varmint scum!":D

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Thorin


And what did PJ exactly do differently to garner a whole new generation that was different from what Tolkien wrote?... Revamped Arwen for any political correct feminists? Please....The story stands on its own merits and that is what has garnered PJ his millions and what is still winning fans as young as 12 to the books that sold millions now as it has sold them in the 1950s.

Arwen is not there for the "feminists" (such a threatining demographic, I'm sure). She's there to make the story easier to follow. Now, I'll agree on the fact that the book still wins fans by the millions, but show me one movie that uses the same language and then we can talk.


Originally posted by Thorin

Hmmm....Lets not forget an important thing.....IT NEVER HAPPENED! You can justify all you want on something that never occured in the book COULD have happened, but that is useless assumption that has every bearing on whether the movie is a proper rendition of the book. It either follows the book or not....Arwen's character was not Tolkien's, what she did was not Tolkien's, the changes she made were not according to Tolkien....

Call it for what it is: A fabricated, straying away from Tolkien by Jackson to claim a bit of his own merit on the epic he claims to be staying so true to....Quit trying to justify it according to Tolkien....

Actually, this is exactly where we defer. When PJ goes to change a scene from the book (which he has to in order to make the movie flow well), he has to create the scene in the spirit of Tolkien. As such, the changes he makes DO need to make sense Tolkien-wise. That's why I'm saying that it's feasible for Arwen to call the flood. I don't call that something completely out of the blue. What would be bad would be to have Aragorn call the flood, or Frodo for that matter. That just wouldn't make sense. The point, were that scene in the book, it would fit in. To me it makes more sense that Arwen could call it then even Glorfindel. That's why I think the change is in the general spirit of Tolkien.

Therefore, I put it to you that Arwen is not the problem. Liv Tyler is the problem. Liv just doesn't have the ability to pull it off. She does not present a character strong enough to either fight at Helms Deep nor stand up to the Nazgul. Indeed, any time I see her all I can think of is the pouty-faced girl from That Thing You Do.

I wouldn't call her acting straight up bad, however. Compared to the other actors here, yes, she's not nearly as good. But compared to actors in any other action or fantasy movie? She gets by, and her scene with Aragorn in Rivendell are very powerful.

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Thorin
You can justify all you want on something that never occured in the book COULD have happened, but that is useless assumption that has every bearing on whether the movie is a proper rendition of the book. It either follows the book or not....
Therein lies the rub and the impasse. We are simply arguing from completely different perspectives, and using completely different yardsticks. What if Gandalf had done everything Arwen did? Still a sin against Tolkien?

[Gamil Zirak]

Originally posted by Talimon
Arwen is not there for the "feminists" (such a threatining demographic, I'm sure). She's there to make the story easier to follow.

How does she make the story easier to follow? All you need is for Frodo to race across the less than a mile treck to the ford and then across the river. Then have Frodo strugle against the Nazgul and have them washed away as the enter the river. How hard to follow is that? Do you expect most of the people watching the movie to have a kindergarten education?

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Gamil Zirak


How does she make the story easier to follow? All you need is for Frodo to race across the less than a mile treck to the ford and then across the river. Then have Frodo strugle against the Nazgul and have them washed away as the enter the river. How hard to follow is that? Do you expect most of the people watching the movie to have a kindergarten education?

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the fact that when she marries Aragorn in Return of the King, it will be much more powerful.

[Gamil Zirak]

I thought that the extra scenes of her and Aragorn in Rivendell were adequate to cover the love story. Again, most people dislike what Arwen does at the Flight to the Ford (at least that's my perception anyway).

[Talimon]

Most people who've read the book, but who's to say about those who haven't? Other then the way she cried (which felt forced to me), I didn't mind that scene at all. The flood with the horses looked very mythic, and I really enjoyed that. She wasn't so bad that she actually ruined the scene, in my opinion.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Parrot

Therein lies the rub and the impasse. We are simply arguing from completely different perspectives, and using completely different yardsticks. What if Gandalf had done everything Arwen did? Still a sin against Tolkien?

Actually, it still would have been unimpressive, but it would have made more sense:

1) Gandalf was at the Fords in the book
2) We see Gandalf do fight scenes and encounters with evil throughout the book, so we KNOW that it was in his character...Tolkien wrote him that way.
3) If anyone could even make an attempt to stand up to the Nazgul it would be Gandalf

If PJ didn't want to introduce another unexplainable character like Glorfindel into the picture, he could have just made another character at the Fords do the honors of saving Frodo. Then he could have given more scenes with Arwen and Aragorn to cement the relationship in the minds of the viewers....This purist would have accepted it more heartily then what occured...Now we have her at Helm's Deep and God knows where else in TTT and RoTK...When does the travesty stop????

[Parrot]

Originally Posted by Thorin
Now we have her at Helm's Deep and God knows where else in TTT and RoTK...When does the travesty stop????

I don't know but I heard the scene where she snatches the mythril coat from the Mouth of Sauron is RIVETING.

[Captain Sparky]

Originally posted by Talimon


I wouldn't call her acting straight up bad, however. Compared to the other actors here, yes, she's not nearly as good. But compared to actors in any other action or fantasy movie? She gets by, and her scene with Aragorn in Rivendell are very powerful.

In spite of the jokes I've made of it, I don't feel her acting is that bad. It's just that she is so unsuited for the role of the [new and improved] Arwen. Liv gets one of the top billings for playing an insignificant (yes, even in the book) character. So PJ, having used her to draw people into the cinema, is forced to find a use for her. Liv Tyler would probably be fine JRR's Arwen, but PJ's uber Arwen needs an on-screen precience that Liv just doesn't possess.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Thorin


Actually, it still would have been unimpressive, but it would have made more sense:

1) Gandalf was at the Fords in the book
2) We see Gandalf do fight scenes and encounters with evil throughout the book, so we KNOW that it was in his character...Tolkien wrote him that way.
3) If anyone could even make an attempt to stand up to the Nazgul it would be Gandalf

If PJ didn't want to introduce another unexplainable character like Glorfindel into the picture, he could have just made another character at the Fords do the honors of saving Frodo. Then he could have given more scenes with Arwen and Aragorn to cement the relationship in the minds of the viewers....This purist would have accepted it more heartily then what occured...Now we have her at Helm's Deep and God knows where else in TTT and RoTK...When does the travesty stop????

Making the story easier to follow is only half the reason Arwen does it instead of Glorfindel. The other half has to do with the fact that introduces what is essentially going to be a key charachter in the movies. Now, you may not agree with PJ on this change from the books, but you'd be better off accepting it. You really don't believe that, having introduced her as such, he'd leave her out of TTT? That would be even cornier then just having her come in RotK like she does in the book. In either case, her role isn't what I'd call major. Quite frankly, the only role I see her fulfilling in the next two films is bringing Anduril to Aragorn (and maybe the standard), and then marrying him when all is said and done. Sure, there might be some extra scenes, but they won't take away anything.

[ReadWryt]

Btw, RW, if the flood was not called by magic, what then? A furious, instantaneous, flash flood, with waves in the shape of horses no less (compliments of Gandalf of course), unleashed at precisely the moment all the Nazgul enter the ford; sounds fairly magical to me. But then again, maybe it could have been Carlrond Spacklerfindel the Rivendell (assistant) groundskeeper just happening to water the lawn at the right time, so I could be wrong. Quote us where it is NOT due to magic and we can talk.... No, see...it doesn't work that way because I am not the one who read that Elrond "Commanded" the flood and presumed that this involved anything more then walking over to a window and yelling "OPEN THE FLOOD GATES, THE NAZGUL ARE IN UP TO THEIR KNEES!!"...

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
You really don't believe that, having introduced her as such, he'd leave her out of TTT? That would be even cornier then just having her come in RotK like she does in the book. In either case, her role isn't what I'd call major. Quite frankly, the only role I see her fulfilling in the next two films is bringing Anduril to Aragorn (and maybe the standard), and then marrying him when all is said and done. Sure, there might be some extra scenes, but they won't take away anything.

I fully agree with you Tal....That is partly why I have such a problem with it....By introducing Arwen the way he did, PJ has no choice but to continually give her fabricated and revamped roles like he did at the Ford...Otherwise it would have made no sense to revamp her role in the first place...It would be twice as bad then if he had kept her to what Tolkien wrote her as if he just let her fade away.....Once you get the snow ball rolling it just keeps getting bigger and farther away from you.....

I highly doubt her only role in the next two movies (other then marrying Aragorn) is to bring him his sword.....There will be more, mark my words...And it will keep getting farther and farther from Tolkien....When do the justifiers stop justifying and start protesting??

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Thorin


I fully agree with you Tal....That is partly why I have such a problem with it....By introducing Arwen the way he did, PJ has no choice but to continually give her fabricated and revamped roles like he did at the Ford...Otherwise it would have made no sense to revamp her role in the first place...It would be twice as bad then if he had kept her to what Tolkien wrote her as if he just let her fade away.....Once you get the snow ball rolling it just keeps getting bigger and farther away from you.....

I highly doubt her only role in the next two movies (other then marrying Aragorn) is to bring him his sword.....There will be more, mark my words...And it will keep getting farther and farther from Tolkien....When do the justifiers stop justifying and start protesting??

I wouldn't look at is as "PJ has no choice", but rather hope that he has everything under control and it will all come full circle by the end.

Since I never took Glorfindel as a major charachter in the book, and since Elrond calling the flood didn't develop his charachter in any major way, it didn't bother me in the least that Arwen replace them. The only thing that bothered me was that Frodo didn't oppose the Nazgul, but the fact that he didn't hardly ruined the movie for me. That's one of the changes one accepts with an "adaptation", and if you go watch Bakshi's version I'm sure you'll find many worse cuts (not to mention a much less entertaining movie). You can't have everything, and even if PJ could have included this, it hardly bothers me enough to deem his whole movie a disgrace.

Here's what will bother me: If Arwen comes in the place of Gandalf at the end of Helm's Deep leading the troop of Rohan. If Arwen leads the fight at Helm's Deep. If Arwen fights side by side with Aragorn, Eomer, Gimili, Legolas, or Theoden. That will bother me. If she kills a stray orc running for cover in the caves, I couldn't care less.

Here's what I think PJ will do with Arwen and Aragorn: She will comfort him before Helm's Deep, maybe even in Helms Deep, and thier love saga will become deeper. She might even bring him his sword (though I've heard rumors this will only happen in RotK). I don't see her replacing anyone. At worst she'll be in some extra scenes. I think in terms of replacing charachters actions the Ford is the worst you are going to see.

Now I'm sure when TTT comes out you'll find a whole lot of other alternations, but we'll deal with those when the time comes :). One rumour I've heard is that Grima kills Saruman in TTT instead of RotK, but we'll see.

And don't be surprised if Faramir's role is expanded. I've heard that from PJ himself in an interview.

[Parrot]

Originally Posted by ReadWryt
No, see...it doesn't work that way because I am not the one who read that Elrond "Commanded" the flood and presumed that this involved anything more then walking over to a window and yelling "OPEN THE FLOOD GATES, THE NAZGUL ARE IN UP TO THEIR KNEES!!"...

This may be getting WAY off topic but what the hoohaa. I would say that there is a pretty clear implication that some sort of magic was at work in triggering the flood, without having G or E come right out and say “We used magic, MAGIC!” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

Alternatively we have a scenario where Elrond is on hand and privy to everything that occurs at the ford but just sits there on his nuts being JAFO as Frodo comes within a hair’s breadth of being captured before ever reaching the water? This is to say nothing of the horse-shaped waves; pretty fancy flood-gates those elves, heretofore great protectors of all things natural and wild, are now building.

[Talimon]

Gandalf straight out says that he added the horses, and I doubt he was sitting at the dam and hitting the water the right way. :)

I think it's quite clear that the flood is commanded by magic, or at least what we'd call magic. When discussing elves using magic, I always refer people to the scene between Sam and Galadriel. Galariel says tells Sam that this is what he'd call magic (the mirror), but she doesn't know what he means. Magic or not, we the audience are led to believe it's magic. If it was clear that the flood wasn't magic, I think it would be explained at one point or another. And you still haven't explained what they mean in the council when they say that Bombadil could hold off the forces of Mordor, at least for a while. Something tells me he wouldn't pull out his battle ax and start choping up Oliphaunts... makes one wonder...

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
One rumour I've heard is that Grima kills Saruman in TTT instead of RotK, but we'll see.

And don't be surprised if Faramir's role is expanded. I've heard that from PJ himself in an interview.

'Tis not a rumor....Because Scouring of the Shire is out, Saruman needs to be killed off at Orthanc....Apparently, Grima shoves him onto one of those funky wheels we saw in FoTR and Saruman is impaled....

I have no problems with PJ expanding Faramir's role....Provided that he is not doing anything stupid and out of character or replacing the actions/words of other characters....Something another character did in the first movie.....We won't mention any names.

[Talimon]

Also, concerning Helm's Deep, I just read that the crew was on that specific set for 2 months. They shot a lot of different scenarios, with different people coming and going, and are going to figure it all out in the editing room. That's where the rumour of Haldir being at Helm's Deep came from. One scenario that people claim was shot had Haldir coming with a troop of Elves from Lothlorien to help. I don't know about this, but point being there are hours upon hours of material, and considering that we've heard from interviews with PJ that Arwen won't be fighting, I'm not too concerned.

[ReadWryt]

This may be getting WAY off topic but what the hoohaa. I would say that there is a pretty clear implication that some sort of magic was at work in triggering the flood, without having G or E come right out and say “We used magic, MAGIC!” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). I think it's quite clear that the flood is commanded by magic, or at least what we'd call magic.

I'm glad to see that so many people know more about the actions of Elrond then was ever mentioned by Tolkien. It warms my heart to know that John Edwards doesn't have a lock on that "channelling" schtick...

I still have yet to see any evidence, explicit or implied, that Elrond used magic to make the flood though...


as for the scouring of the shire being cut, here is some if the available evidence of Saruman's early death...

http://www.tolkienonline.com/movies/profiles.cfm?ID=8
http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/2/972402998
http://pub108.ezboard.com/fthelotrmoviesitegeneraldiscussion.showMessageRang e?start=101&stop=120&topicID=478.topic
(Bottom of the page)

http://theonering.net/archives/main_news/7.17.01-7.23.01
(Do a find for " Saruman & Sauron's Death: Confirmed ")

[Talimon]

That's it... You made me go get out my copy of the book... Pshh... Let's see what we have:


'Who made the flood?' asked Frodo.
'Elrond commanded it,' answered Gandalf. 'The river of this valley is under his power, and it will rise in anger when he has great need to bar the Ford. As soon as the captain of the Ringwraiths rode into the water the flood was released. If I may say so, I added a few touches of my own: you may not have noticed, but some of the waves took the form of great white horses with shining white riders; and there were many rolling and grinding boulders. For a moment I was afraid that we had let loose too fierce a wrath, and the flood would get out of hand and wash you all away. There is great vigour in the waters that come down from the snows of the Misty Mountains."

While I'll admit that there is nothing blatantly obvious about the flood being commanded by magic, I think we can all agree that the horses were magic, as were the boulders. That being said, "The river of this valley is under his power," sounds very much like magic to me. If it was a dam, why would Gandalf say "under his power"? Point being, if this is up for debate, which by the above quote one could presume it is, then PJ's interpretation of it being magic is as legit as any. Quite frankly, were we to see someone release a dam I can say for myself and others that I'd be much more disapointed.

[Thorin]

Frankly, I couldn't care less if Elrond had come down to the water with a five gallon pail and threw it at the riders.....The fact is, is that it was Elrond, Lord of Rivendell who did the honors....Not Arwen sitting pretty in Rivendell from the books, or PJ's XenArwen who saves the day and steals the show.....To justify it by saying that it's feasible because Arwen is Elrond's daughter is not valid and a mute point.....It never happened.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Thorin
Frankly, I couldn't care less if Elrond had come down to the water with a five gallon pail and threw it at the riders.....The fact is, is that it was Elrond, Lord of Rivendell who did the honors....Not Arwen sitting pretty in Rivendell from the books, or PJ's XenArwen who saves the day and steals the show.....To justify it by saying that it's feasible because Arwen is Elrond's daughter is not valid and a mute point.....It never happened.

That's where we disagree. If you are looking for the spirit of Tolkien rather then specifics, then it would matter. If you are going to criticize every change from the books then I don't see why Arwen stands out for you. You can say "It never happened" for 3 hours straight, but you are missing the point. The integrity of Tolkien's tale is hardly lost by not having Elrond command the flood. This is hardly a major part in the tale.

My point is this: If it's feasible that it could have happened in Tolkiens tale (which it is), if it doesn't deminish any major themes from that specific scene, and if it serves the movie, then it's a good change, and in the spirit of Tolkien. Like I said before, this change is about as small as they come, when you really think about it. I mean, look at the whole movie. All of the charachters are in line with thier book counterparts (more or less), all thier names are correct, and the vast majority of memorable scenes are present. The themes are captured, the movie ends on a powerful note, and it's not boring.

I think people were expecting the movie to be the best movie of the century, just as the book was so popular in the literature world. They were expecting it to be a powerful, trancending experience. All I can say is "wake up!".

I'd also like to note the peculiar fact that every reviewer seems to find different parts of movie good and others bad. I haven't found many scenes that have been universally dubbed as straight up "bad". This is quite similar to reaction towards Tolkien's book. While many people might deem it the "holy document" in this age, when the book came out letters to Tolkien were mixed and varied. Not everyone agreed on everything, and in fact Tolkien himself didn't agree on everything himself. That's why I think that it's important for people to loosen up and look at how much is there. And I don't feel like I'm defending something that's shallow, either. This isn't just another action movie.

[ReadWryt]

Quite frankly, were we to see someone release a dam I can say for myself and others that I'd be much more disapointed.

I see, to interpret Tolkien in a manner which disagrees with your opinion is a bad thing, but to outright change the fact that Elrond, not Arwen, made the flood is ok...:rolleyes:

[Talimon]

Originally posted by ReadWryt


I see, to interpret Tolkien in a manner which disagrees with your opinion is a bad thing, but to outright change the fact that Elrond, not Arwen, made the flood is ok...:rolleyes:

What I'm really curious about is this: How does having Arwen call the flood detract from Elrond's charachter? Does this really ruin the scene for you? Like I've said numerous times, this isn't about being able to call all the changes from the book. That's too easy, and far too dull. You can't criticize a scene on the sole argument that it defers from the book. That's a weak critique. If you are going to compare a scene between the movie and the book, you have to look at thier individual merits, and then decide what they each add to the story. If the movie has the important elements, then the least you can say is that it's faithful.

I don't believe the scene with Arwen is faithful to the book, but I believe it's there for other purposes. It fulfills other roles, and I commend it for that. The scene at the ford isn't what I'd call a cruicial scene in terms of the details. Out of all the places Arwen could have been placed it's easily the best. If you'll remember the hysteria before the movie, people were talking about Arwen joining the Fellowship and the likes. Look at what it turned out to be.

This is really just nitpicking, this whole argument. It doesn't ruin the movie, and many would argue it even enhances it.

[ReadWryt]

I won't list again all of the character traits and actions that had to be axed in order to give Arwen the requisite screen time needed to apparently make what Jackson and others presumed would be a movie which lacked appeal for women...Frodo showing his fortitude, mind numbingly scariness of the Nazgul and the likes, 13 characters altered in all... but am I to be lead to believe that sacrificing all of these things in order to turn a minor character into a major one for the sake of supposedly drawing females who would otherwise have not gone to see the movie was actually a GOOD thing? Once more, it's interesting that Interpretation is bad, re-invention though, for political correctness, is good...

[Talimon]

13 charachters?!?! Let me assume that you are exagerating... There aren't even that many charachters in the tale by that point (unless you count each of the Nazgul as thier own charachter).

Make up your own mind, but I never saw Arwen as being there for political corectness. Nor did PJ. When asked about the expansion of Arwen's role, PJ and Boyens have both said that it's there for the plot. This movie is far from being what I'd call "politically correct". If anything PJ is forsaking political correctness. The whole cast is white, Hobbits smoke, and the Southorns and Easterlings will be portrayed as Tolkien described them (darker skinned and haired).

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
When asked about the expansion of Arwen's role, PJ and Boyens have both said that it's there for the plot. This movie is far from being what I'd call "politically correct".


If it's just "there for the plot", why do so many justify it as if it should and could be in Tolkien? As I've said before, I have no beef with people who say that it was a fabricated move on PJ's part to tie the story together and that they just plain old liked it....I can accept that argument, though I don't like it....

My problem is and beef is with people who feel they need to delve into the depths of Tolkien's characters and books to justify her being at the Fords and saying that because Arwen is Elrond's daughter and Luthien's descendant, she could do those things so it was perfectly right in having her do them.....Horse pucky!

Tolkien wrote Arwen a certain way, PJ changed her and added things to her role by fabricating and combining other characters into hers.....plain and simple. Accept it or reject it....

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Thorin


Tolkien wrote Arwen a certain way, PJ changed her and added things to her role by fabricating and combining other characters into hers.....plain and simple. Accept it or reject it....

By that logic, PJ wouldn't have been any worse off had he made Arwen a witch who could spout fireballs and lightning. Indeed, if the only way you are going to judge the movie against the book is by saying it happened or it didn't, you might as well make Frodo 10 ft. high and give Sam 4 arms. In my opinion the addition of Arwen is in the spirit of the book, and that makes it more legit for those who won't accept her otherwise. Personally I like the way she's portrayed regardless of the book. But if you are going to argue about the merits of having her there in terms of being faithful to the book, I'd like to point out that it's not as if the change is way out of place. It flows smoothly, and makes sense.

[ReadWryt]

..she doesn't need to spout fireballs and lightning...she can make floods and bring Hobbits back to life, or was that just her expressing a sentiment? So nice of P.J. to make things less confusing for the Non-Readers and all...

[Talimon]

You must have missed Gandalf telling Frodo that he was healed by the hands of lord Elrond. Or maybe you have just chosen to forget it.

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Thorin
Tolkien wrote Arwen a certain way, PJ changed her and added things to her role by fabricating and combining other characters into hers.....plain and simple. Accept it or reject it....

Thorin, if this is the sole point you are trying to make, consider it made in spades as far as I am concerned; be damn hard to argue otherwise. It is the related implication that any change, by definition, is bad and should be unacceptable to any true Tolkien fan that is hard for some of us to swallow. The real acceptance problem is your refusal to accept that these changes were reasonable and understandable from a cinematic storytelling p.o.v., and not quite the blasphemous sacrilege to the Holy Writ of Tolkien you would have us believe. Beyond short-changing Frodo (somewhat), it is apparent that the ford scene is just not a major problem for MOST Tolkien book fans, and if PJ at some point decided he could not be as faithful to the written word as he earlier indicated, well, that’s life; “Pucky” happens. Tolkien wrote a novel, not a screenplay. Accept it or… might as well accept it ‘cuz you ain’t gonna change it.

[Gamil Zirak]

Originally posted by Parrot
and if PJ at some point decided he could not be as faithful to the written word as he earlier indicated, well, that?s life; ?Pucky? happens. Tolkien wrote a novel, not a screenplay. Accept it or? might as well accept it ?cuz you ain?t gonna change it.

We can accept it, but it doesn't mean that we like the change. You can't expect us to say "Oh well, can't do anything about it so we'll just start to like it." Obviously, we don't have much of a choice because all three movies have been filmed. We are still entitled to our opinions though.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Parrot
It is the related implication that any change, by definition, is bad and should be unacceptable to any true Tolkien fan that is hard for some of us to swallow. The real acceptance problem is your refusal to accept that these changes were reasonable and understandable from a cinematic storytelling p.o.v., and not quite the blasphemous sacrilege to the Holy Writ of Tolkien you would have us believe.

Nobody is implying that ANY change is blasphemous just major changes like Arwen, and whether you feel that it doesn't take away from the story does not negate the fact that it WAS a major change.... "Reasonable" and "understandable" changes are:

1)Gandalf bumping his head to make him more human to the audience.
2) Merry and Pippin's somewhat over done comic relief
3) Elrond's extra grumpiness
4) Some of the cheesy dialogue to make the scene more understandable to an ignorant audience
5) Cutting out characters like Radaghast and Gildor and Bombadil who don't really contribute to the story.
6) Cutting out scenes like the Old Forest and the trip itself for time restraints

These are changes that, though annoying, are acceptable in light of the cinematic medium.

Arwen's role was a major change that distorted 13 characters (including the Nazgul) and majorly added to the actions of a character that was never written the way Tolkien did. A big difference between that and Gandalf acting like a crazy old man (IS IT HERE? IS IT SAFE?) and bumping his head, which is annoying but not a huge character change.....

[ReadWryt]

I didn't miss people who hadn't read the book talking about Arwen bringing Frodo back to life...or how ballsy it was for Elrond to be talking smack to Gandalf because they thought that the Istari was a man himself..But I digress.

Adding more Arwen then was in the books does nothing to serve the story, but instead serves an Actress and serves to expand the amount of "love story" is contained in the portion of the story that is being told on the screen. Hell, I'm offended at having Arwen comfort Aragorn when he is standing in front of Narsil in Rivendel. It does nothing to serve the story other then to introduce new and previously non-existent fears on the part of Aragorn as to his birthright. Almost every instance where Jackson and his wife have attempted to expand this movie for the sake of "making it less confusing" for the non-readers it is invariably at the expense of some important concept of the story or aspect of a character. Starting with Merry and Pippin being capable of setting off a Fireworks display that was greater and more impressive then anything we see Gandalf create until Aragorn simply LETS the Ringbearer run off into a forrest full of Orcs simply because he decides to, an act which negates the outcome of the test that Gandalf passed by finding the humility in himself to realize that he was not the only one who could lead the fellowship to success and shows Aragorn, who swore to protect Frodo to be less strong willed to do so then Sam, who nearly drowned trying to stay with him.

If these changes enhanced the story or characters then it would not be a problem...but the truth is that time and again characters are cheapened and the story is made flawed by the introduction of so many things that are pure invention...and then the film makers have the gaul to tell us that they had to leave things out because of time constraints... The whole thing with Arwen at the Ford is an affront to the character of Frodo. I've seen even those defending this scene admit to this...I've seen at least one of them say that Arwen is not a major character, so this leads one to believe that it is ok to make a major change in a Major character for the sake of giving more screentime/lines/importance to a lesser character even when that change removes the opportunity for the major character to make a moral stand, an act of will and an irreversable resolve to stand against all who would seek to use the Ring for the detriment of Middle-earth. Before this act he was merely a friend of a Wizard doing him a favor and getting something to Rivendel and not someone who had proven their trustworthiness to be the one to see through the destruction of the ring, to do what Isildur had failed at and to bring freedom to all good peoples of the land. This is the pivital point at which Frodo becomes not just a Hobbit with a ring, but The Ringbearer, who would stand up against the evil even at the possible expense of his own life.

The movie takes this away and gives him instead a simple decision that he has grown tired of hearing the bickering at the council of Elrond and so he offers his services like some innocent third party willing to settle a dispute.

[Thorin]

CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP :)

Well put and stated, RW....You have hit the nail right on the head and stated it more eloquently then I could have.....

Sorry folks, pretty hard to argue with that reasoning.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by ReadWryt


Adding more Arwen then was in the books does nothing to serve the story, but instead serves an Actress and serves to expand the amount of "love story" is contained in the portion of the story that is being told on the screen. Hell, I'm offended at having Arwen comfort Aragorn when he is standing in front of Narsil in Rivendel. It does nothing to serve the story other then to introduce new and previously non-existent fears on the part of Aragorn as to his birthright.

Adding Arwen does tons for the story. If you'd accept the fact that PJ is going to be expanding Arwen's charachter, you'd realize that having her risk her life in his place is a powerful way to foreshadow thier saga. Arwen comforting Aragorn is the first time we even learn of Aragorns true identity. It also happens to be a powerful scene between them, and in terms of the movie adds a lot of charachter to Aragorn.

Originally posted by ReadWryt


Almost every instance where Jackson and his wife have attempted to expand this movie for the sake of "making it less confusing" for the non-readers it is invariably at the expense of some important concept of the story or aspect of a character. Starting with Merry and Pippin being capable of setting off a Fireworks display that was greater and more impressive then anything we see Gandalf create until Aragorn simply LETS the Ringbearer run off into a forrest full of Orcs simply because he decides to, an act which negates the outcome of the test that Gandalf passed by finding the humility in himself to realize that he was not the only one who could lead the fellowship to success and shows Aragorn, who swore to protect Frodo to be less strong willed to do so then Sam, who nearly drowned trying to stay with him.

That's the nature of adaptation. Some things are cut, others aren't. Some things are changed. If you don't see the reasons for the changes made without needing someone to explain them to you then I suppose it doesn't matter. Each change serves some purpose. Often that purpose may not be in line with staying true to the book, but it ends up contributing to the movie. No one is arguing that Jackson stayed as true as he could of. But that's not the issue, not even for readers of the book. The issue is whether the movies have done a service or disservice to Tolkien's name. And by all accounts it's the former. Jackson has made a grand opening for the trilogy, and captured the minds of readers and non-readers alike. If I really cared to I could make an infinite list of changes Jackson carried out, major and minor. But that serves no purpose.

I'm not arguing that it's impossible to make a truer version of the tale. That's not to say that I couldn't make such an argument, considering that every previous adaptation has fallen shorter in details then this one. But even were a truer adaptation concieved, let alone made, it would be very difficult for it to be as well-made as the one we have before us. On paper everything looks nice and easy, but when you start putting things on screen it doesn't always work. I am not trying to justify Arwen as something straight out of the books and praise-worthy. Rather I am trying to point out that, considering what power was at the disposal of the film makers, it is very fortunate that such scene's as Arwens were in the general mood of Tolkien, and more importantly the film itself.

Originally posted by ReadWryt

If these changes enhanced the story or characters then it would not be a problem...but the truth is that time and again characters are cheapened and the story is made flawed by the introduction of so many things that are pure invention...and then the film makers have the gaul to tell us that they had to leave things out because of time constraints... The whole thing with Arwen at the Ford is an affront to the character of Frodo. I've seen even those defending this scene admit to this...I've seen at least one of them say that Arwen is not a major character, so this leads one to believe that it is ok to make a major change in a Major character for the sake of giving more screentime/lines/importance to a lesser character even when that change removes the opportunity for the major character to make a moral stand, an act of will and an irreversable resolve to stand against all who would seek to use the Ring for the detriment of Middle-earth. Before this act he was merely a friend of a Wizard doing him a favor and getting something to Rivendel and not someone who had proven their trustworthiness to be the one to see through the destruction of the ring, to do what Isildur had failed at and to bring freedom to all good peoples of the land. This is the pivital point at which Frodo becomes not just a Hobbit with a ring, but The Ringbearer, who would stand up against the evil even at the possible expense of his own life.


The movie takes this away and gives him instead a simple decision that he has grown tired of hearing the bickering at the council of Elrond and so he offers his services like some innocent third party willing to settle a dispute.

In terms of the council of Elrond, all I have to say is that the book doesn't explain Frodo's motivation for taking the ring either. It simply says that he was driven by some "greater" force that he couldn't explain, but it never says just "why" he would do it. In that respect the movie captures it perfectly. Frodo choosing to take it, if you remember the movie, has nothing to do with the council arguing. He is deeply in thought, struggling with the ring, unaware of the argument going on. The decision comes to him spontaneously, as it does in the book. And when he decides to take the ring, you can see the look of surprise in all the councilmembers faces.

Also, in terms of Frodo carrying the ring to Rivendell, it was hardly an act of friendship to Gandalf. Gandalf lay the burden on him, and he had to accept it for his own life. As is said numerous times in the book, part of the reason it was deemed good that Frodo bear the ring was because of his inability to use it. It was because he was so small and helpless that it proved well that he take it.

Like I said before, I'm not arguing that the movie stays completely true to the book. But I'm willing to argue that what's there is done in service and loving respect to the source material. I am almost willing to argue that were the language kept the same as it is in the book, Jackson would have done a disservice to Tolkien's tale.

Look at the Bakshi version. It comes off, even for readers of the book, as horribly forced and slavish. Look at the BBC radio series. They are incredibly boring to listen to, unless you enjoy what sounds like cheap voice acting. Indeed, short of the book itself the movie is the truest and most entertaining of all previous adaptations, and I would be willing to argue that even were another director and screenwriting team to take it on, it could only end up being worse.

[Parrot]

Composed before reading previous Talimon post

Gamil, if I somehow implied that you are not entitled to your opinion, I apologize as that is not my intent.

The part of that post that is hard to argue is the infringement on the character of Frodo and it is hard to argue mainly because it has been conceded to some degree time and time again. However, even on a largely conceded point you have over-stated your case:

Posted by ReadWryt
This is the pivital point at which Frodo becomes not just a Hobbit with a ring, but The Ringbearer, who would stand up against the evil even at the possible expense of his own life.

While the book version shows some of the mettle of Frodo that has maybe not been so obvious to this point, I don’t see it as this cathartic, watershed moment for Frodo where he decides that he will stand up to all comers at whatever cost, but maybe that’s just me. In fact at Weathertop he takes his blade to a RingWraith WHILE WEARING THE RING (hence playing on their court) so that is more likely the vaunted pivotal point, if indeed there is one. His statements and posturing at the ford are just as easily interpreted as vain attempts to convince himself, or the nine, that he can somehow hope to stand against them, when he knows he cannot.

Posted by ReadWryt
an act of will and an irreversable resolve to stand against all who would seek to use the Ring for the detriment of Middle-earth. .

Immediately after his statements at the ford, JRRT describes Frodo as “stricken dumb” right before passing out, hardly tantamount to “irreversible resolve” in my lexicon. If the flood doesn’t come when it does, Frodo’s ass is new-mown grass, sorry.

From “The Council of Elrond”

At last with an effort he spoke and wondered to hear his own words, as if some other will was using his small voice. (emphasis added)

“I will take the Ring” he said “ but I do not know the way.”

Hmmm...doesn’t sound like he had “resolved” much of anything regarding his role in the fate of the Ring until this very point, IMO. Don’t get me wrong, Frodo showed some sauce standing up to the nine in the book but I’m not sure the damage from the movie is quite as transcendental or irredeemable as it is made out to be.

Any other points about whether the changes enhance the story or not or diminish other characters are simply more subjective opinions and I think we have about beat that poor deceased nag into dust.

[Talimon]

Well said. Unless some brand new point is made I think we can let this thread be. If you didn't enjoy the movie, so be it. More (or less) power to you.

[Theoden]

I think for those people who have no clue about what The Lord of the Rings is supposed to be like, the way PJ did it was great. I loved the way she caught Aragorn off his gaurd. :)
I think Arwen is almost too left out in the book to be honest. That was the only thing I didn't really like about the book. So I was really glad when PJ presented her like that. Two thumbs up!

[ReadWryt]

Immediately after his statements at the ford, JRRT describes Frodo as “stricken dumb” right before passing out, hardly tantamount to “irreversible resolve” in my lexicon. If the flood doesn’t come when it does, Frodo’s ass is new-mown grass, sorry.

Don't confuse Frodo's physical condition with his determination, or lack thereof.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From “The Council of Elrond”

At last with an effort he spoke and wondered to hear his own words, as if some other will was using his small voice. (emphasis added)

“I will take the Ring” he said “ but I do not know the way.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hmmm...doesn’t sound like he had “resolved” much of anything regarding his role in the fate of the Ring until this very point, IMO. Don’t get me wrong, Frodo showed some sauce standing up to the nine in the book but I’m not sure the damage from the movie is quite as transcendental or irredeemable as it is made out to be.


...yes, indeed...even Frodo was caught by surprise that he, a Hobbit, was saying these words. The seed of something was growing within him which was borne of his decision at the ford...At Weathertop he was still fighting for his life, at the Ford it was obvious he could not even do that. Suddenly in his fevor he was fighting for something greater then himself, this kind of thing changes a person in ways even they are not at first blush aware of...

[Parrot]

"stricken dumb" from fear? sounds like an emotional or mental condition more than physical. Dont' believe I have confused anything.

The seed of something was growing within him which was borne of his decision at the ford...

Any evidence of this, or are you now "channeling"?

[Thorin]

Frodo's being "stricken dumb" has nothing to do with his "irreversable resolve". It was from the power of the Lord of the Nazgul coming over him...

Just because Frodo was foolishly outnumbered, that doesn't change the fact that he was determined to make a stand. He just wasn't smart to the danger he put himself in....That says a lot for his bravery and determination...The Nazgul were very powerful and Tolkien showed the realization of that instead of having Frodo conquering all or coming out of it unscathed.....The others make it plain that were it not for Gandalf and Elrond, Frodo would have been Sauron's little play thing....

Hence the reason why Arwen fearlessly defying the Nazgul and not allowing Frodo to stand up to them does a lot of damage to the characters.....

[Parrot]

Frodo's being "stricken dumb" has nothing to do with his "irreversable resolve".
Not sure I agree with that statement but whatever... the damage to the character of Frodo has been conceded (again).
He just wasn't smart to the danger he put himself in.... Defo can't agree with that, is he not already half-dead from the morgul blade wound? They called him to stop, IMO.