Flight to the ford: Alternatives to Arwen/Glorfindel?

[Shion]

Hi all,

Yes, this is yet another "flight to the ford" thread; although not intended as a criticism of the film-makers' decision to use Arwen instead of Glorfindel. Let me begin by saying that I rather liked the sequence as portrayed in the film. Probably less due to the choice of character and more because I simply liked the way it was executed.

But I can understand why others might feel differently- I won't re-hash all the reasons people have complained about the sequence, but will concede that of all the characters that could have replaced Glorfindel, Arwen didn't really stand out as 'the one' they had to choose, in my opinion. (Not saying that she was a bad choice, just that she wasn't the only candidate for the job.)

So just for the hell of it- and this may have been done before, but I searched and didn't find a similar thread- let's discuss who else the film-makers could have picked (other than Glorfindel, of course).

Personally, I think Legolas could have been a decent pick for this task. Reasons being:
- Like Glorfindel, he is a male warrior elf, and it is therefore quite plausible that he would have been involved in a search for the party.
- Unlike Glorfindel, he is a non-incidental, non-droppable character in the story of LOTR (where Glorfindel was important in the overall history of Middle Earth, less so the story at hand).
- Arwen could still be featured in the "I choose a mortal life" scene, which I think would have been sufficient to 'give her more weight in the storyline' as Jackson may have wanted.
- A better introduction for Legolas (who arguably just sort of popped up out of nowhere, and suddenly became part of the fellowship without the audience really getting a chance to meet him).

There's still the obvious problem of the calling of the flood... I think that even the people who hated the fact that Arwen called it would agree that she would be more likely to have that ability than Legolas (being a foreign elf as opposed to the flood-commander's daughter). But, a possible way of overcoming this hurdle would be to simply have Elrond command it... after all, that's how it was done in the book. It might even be kinda cool seeing him standing somewhere in Rivendell commanding it (like the scene where we see Saruman at the top of Orthanc commanding the landslide).

Anyway, this thread is just intended as a bit of fun really. Like I said, I was more than happy with PJ's representation of the scene, and not trying to complain about it. But I just thought I'd mention this Legolas idea as a possible alternative... as far as I can see, it's a good compromise between satisfying most of Jackson's objectives and keeping the Tolkien fans happy. :)

I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks, and/or some other ideas as to who could have replaced Arwen/Glorfindel in the sequence.

-Bon

[ReadWryt]

Personally I think that Tolkien did a more then fine job of casting that scene when he wrote the story in the first place...and cannot understand why anybody would want to change that?

As for Elrond, why did the flood have to have magical origins? There is nothing in the book that says it is definately so...

The truth is to do anything but leave the story as it is is to go forth with the presumption that you can improve on Tolkien's writings...is this indeed what you are trying to do?

[Thorin]

RW, I think that Shion is trying to find a compromise between the attitudes of "Arwen sucks and shouldn't be there" and "Glorfindel is a weak character and out of place in the story".

I think that as much as I feel that Glorfindel could have been in there and still been fine in the movie despite not really doing anything or having a one time role (examples again of Haldir and useless Celeborn to support my opinion), if you had to eliminate Glorfindel on the FADs arguments, I think Legolas would have been a satisfactory substitute. He would have been much more in character than Arwen (And don't start slinging that "Luthien was her ancestor" ****, folks. The facts from LoTR are that Legolas doing action scenes is much more in line with his character than Arwen!).

I think that by that time, all the Nazgul couldn't have cared less about the company, so Aragorn could have done it as well and drawn the Nazgul away from the company....

However, ultimately, I must agree with RW. Glorfindel would have been acceptable just as Tolkien wrote it. I find no fault whatsoever from the book having Glor in there one time...Who cares? He's just another of the many characters that dance through Tolkien and leave again....

[Shion]

RW, I think that Shion is trying to find a compromise between the attitudes of "Arwen sucks and shouldn't be there" and "Glorfindel is a weak character and out of place in the story".

Exactly.

I, too, would have been delighted to see it filmed exactly as Tolkien described it (with Glorfindel), and certainly wasn't trying to improve on Tolkien's writing (nor Jackson's film-making, for that matter). I just thought it might be a fun topic.

As for Elrond, why did the flood have to have magical origins? There is nothing in the book that says it is definately so...

No, but there was nothing that said it to be definitely not so, either. Besides, where did I mention anything about magic? By likening it to Saruman's spell-casting, I meant only that it might have been interesting to 'see' Elrond on-screen commanding it in a similar fashion. (Bear in mind that we never 'saw' Saruman commanding a land-slide in the books, either.) I never said that it "ha[d] to have magical origins."

I think that by that time, all the Nazgul couldn't have cared less about the company, so Aragorn could have done it as well and drawn the Nazgul away from the company....

Yeah, Aragorn would have been quite a practical choice, too. And if there really were an insatiable need to show Arwen at that particular part of the movie, she could still have come out to meet them as she did in the film, with Aragorn using her horse to take Frodo back. (Although it would probably still be in conflict with the book's attitudes to have her riding alone in the woods.)

Here's another thought- maybe Elrond himself could have come to the rescue? :)

Two questions:

(1) Does anyone know the literal translation of Arwen's Elvish words used to call the flood?

(2) How was 'Flight to the Ford' handled in Bakshi's LOTR film?

-Bon

[Ithrynluin]

In Bakshi's cartoon version of LOTR,Legolas finds the fellowship instead of Glorfindel.At the ford,the flood comes the minute the riders step into the river and we don't know who made it.Later,Gandalf tells Frodo that Elrond commanded it and Gandalf made some "special effects" like wild running horses in the waves.
The majority of people dislikes Bakshi's film,but I like it a lot,despite many faults.

[Shion]

Really? It was Legolas that found the party in Bakshi's version? LOL, and I thought I was so clever for coming up with that idea. :D

-Bon

[Talimon]

I can't see how anyone can even consider claiming that Bakshi's version is superior to PJ's. It's funny, because right now the two films sell for the exact same price on amazon.com. Go do a search of "lord of the rings" on amazon and look at the two films on DVD side by side. I just started laughing when I saw they were equally priced.

Bakshi's version is for the most part a visually and emotionally defunct movie. It has some of the corniest visual images ever concieved, and the dialogue is at times so moronic it's sad. I don't care how bad you think PJ butchered Tolkiens' tale, nothing comes close to these:

Frodo: I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this would have happened.

Gandalf: So do I.

----------------------------

Frodo: It's a pitty he didn't kill him when he had the chance.

Gandalf: Yes, it's a pitty.

-------------------------------


Talk about shamelessly destroying two of the best quotes in the book, if not the whole trilogy. Those two quotes have long been two of my favorites, and Gandalf's responses to Frodo have in many ways summed up much of the tale for me. I knew PJ "got it" when I heard those quotes. I would have been only slightly irritated had Bakshi just cut them, but including them and butchering them as he did is so petty that the whole film practically falls apart from the moment those lines are spoken. Amazingly the film reaches ever lower levels of dullness from there.

The one advantage it has over PJ's film is not even the script, which as a whole is amatuerish at best. It's rather those few lines here and there that capture a glimpse of Tolkiens majesty. The two I have in mind at the moment are 1) when Merry and Pippin tell Frodo why he can't leave the Shire without them, and 2) when Aragorn says something in Bree to the effect of, "So I look foul but feel fair, is that it?". Those two scenes had practically word for word transcriptions from the books, and came off very well. Unfortunately, the moment the movie has to delve any deeper then mere face-value it fails. There is not one scene in the movie that comes close to the emotional power some of PJ's scenes have. And the ending, especially the way it introduces and leaves Treebeard... This isn't even a debate.

On the subject of the Ford, while I can deffinitely imagine Glorfindel doing it in a movie format, it wouldn't serve any purpose. Having Arwen do it helps introduce a charachter in an extremely dramatic way. Maybe you don't agree with PJ's version of Arwen, but you can't deny the fact that her opening scenes in the trilogy aren't "mild". In fact, I even see it as PJ foreshadowing her relationship with Aragorn. By her risking the dangerous road to Rivendell in Aragorn's place we get a symbolic foreshadowing of the greater sacrifice she will ultimately make.

I think that as much as I feel that Glorfindel could have been in there and still been fine in the movie despite not really doing anything or having a one time role (examples again of Haldir and useless Celeborn to support my opinion), if you had to eliminate Glorfindel on the FADs arguments, I think Legolas would have been a satisfactory substitute.

I've heard this argument, about Haldir and Celebron, a few times, and I think it needs to be addressed. Without presenting any rumoured spoilers (go visit theonering.net and check the last weeks news) Haldir isn't a charachter we are meant to remember. Celebron isn't a charachter we are meant to remember. The way they are introduced into the story doesn't require the audience to know who they are. The Fellowship are visiting a foreign and mysterious Elf forest, and having strange and unknown charachters is only to be expected. It helps add to the mystery. Glorfindel, however, is a totally different story. Here we are talking about Arargorn and the Hobbits hiding from Black Riders, staying away from anyone they possibly can. Anyone who now approaches cannot simply be forgotten. Let's put it this way: If it's possible to have Frodo at the ford alone, then no new charachters should even be introduced to begin with. Frodo should either run across the Ford on foot, or somehow aquire a horse in as simple a way as possible. The reason Glorfindel works in the book is because the 5 companions have time to walk with him before the black riders approach. During this time the reader sees him talk and establishes him as a charachter, albeit a somewhat shallow one. This sort of approach would be extremely uncinematic in the film. The way PJ handles it is very suspenseful. Once Frodo is stabbed, every minute, indeed every second counts. Arwen finds them, and immediately Frodo is carried off to Rivendell as quickly as possible. Indeed it's a "flight" to the ford, only much more of a chase then the book makes it.

Now personally, were I PJ, I would have kept everything the same but have made one major change:

Right before Arwen reaches the Ford, a black rider comes from the side and pulls or knocks her off the horse. This allows Frodo to cross the ford alone, and in turn say his defiant lines to the Nazgul. At the same time it keeps Arwens dramatic entrace, shows that she isn't Xena, and everyone is happy. If PJ must he can even have Arwen crawl up behind the Nazgul as they cross and whisper the same lines she whispers in the movie, and thus call the flood. Or, once Frodo wakes up, Gandalf can in turn tell him a quick account of what happened. While he does this he can also mention that even though the Nazgul have lost thier steeds they have not been destroyed. This will be important when people see them later in TTT and RotK.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
If it's possible to have Frodo at the ford alone, then no new charachters should even be introduced to begin with. Frodo should either run across the Ford on foot, or somehow aquire a horse in as simple a way as possible.

You know, what? I've changed my mind. I would rather have had Aragorn throw Frodo on the horse and let him carry it out from there like the book. No Glorfindel, no Arwen. Elrond calls the flood without warning and is explained later. Everybody is happy.

Originally posted by Talimon
The reason Glorfindel works in the book is because the 5 companions have time to walk with him before the black riders approach. During this time the reader sees him talk and establishes him as a charachter, albeit a somewhat shallow one. This sort of approach would be extremely uncinematic in the film. The way PJ handles it is very suspenseful. Once Frodo is stabbed, every minute, indeed every second counts. Arwen finds them, and immediately Frodo is carried off to Rivendell as quickly as possible. Indeed it's a "flight" to the ford, only much more of a chase then the book makes it.

You're assuming that Glorfindel's character would need to be enhanced the way Tolkien did it. It could have been portrayed as nothing more than an elf messenger of Elrond doing what elves would normally do in those situations and putting Frodo on his much faster elven steed and letting him go. No need for character development at all. No need for replacements.

Originally posted by Talimon
Right before Arwen reaches the Ford, a black rider comes from the side and pulls or knocks her off the horse. This allows Frodo to cross the ford alone, and in turn say his defiant lines to the Nazgul. At the same time it keeps Arwens dramatic entrace, shows that she isn't Xena, and everyone is happy. If PJ must he can even have Arwen crawl up behind the Nazgul as they cross and whisper the same lines she whispers in the movie, and thus call the flood.

Ick...Sorry Tal, that would have been even worse. Arwen is made to look like even more of a mockery then she already is even being at the Ford and she still comes back and saves the day. Why make it so bloody complicated and dramatic to the point that it almost mocks Tolkien? Leave Glor and Arwen out of it. Aragorn sticks Frodo on the horse and lets it play out like the book. No useless character is added, Frodo stands up to the Nazgul and Arwen can be introduced in Rivendell with awestruck questions from the hobbit and elven explanation of who the daughter of Elrond is and make her a more believable character.

[ReadWryt]

Oh for Gawd sake, why not just have had Elrond show up and grab the little man? At least the "Flood making" part would have been consistent, and the whole "Let any grace I have..." bit would have melded with the healing acts of Elrond. I guess it would have been below the head of Rivendel to actually LEAVE to do something so important that didn't involve killing, slashing or ignoring the insolent Man and his refusal to destroy the Ring. Face it, the ONLY reason it was Arwen was the T&A demographic. Elrond would have been fine, better then Arwen as a choice...

[Parrot]

To add to Thorin’s idea; the horse could even be Shadowfax sent out from Rivendell (or Weathertop) by Gandalf to search for the party before he returns to Rohan. No need for a rider at all. Maybe?

[Talimon]

Face it, the ONLY reason it was Arwen was the T&A demographic.

That I won't agree on. Maybe PJ likes Arwen as a charachter, but there is absolutely no proof that the reason her role has been expanded is due to pressure from "the T&A demographic".

[Parrot]

Elrond would have been fine, better then Arwen as a choice...
All along you have argued that the real travesty of the ford scene is the monumental injury to Frodo’s character. Now, you say it is fine if Elrond does the same things as Arwen? Is Frodo not short-changed all the same? What is the difference? What am I not getting here?

[aragil]

Originally posted by Parrot
What am I not getting here?

Any promotion to Forum vetrinarian.

[Parrot]

LOL! Ya think?

[ReadWryt]

All along you have argued that the real travesty of the ford scene is the monumental injury to Frodo’s character. Now, you say it is fine if Elrond does the same things as Arwen? Is Frodo not short-changed all the same? What is the difference? What am I not getting here?

...you must have missed my dressing down for not paying attention to the object of the thread, which is not which would have been better...the original scene or the one used but instead what would have been better then using Arwen. It's ok, I initially made the same mistake you just did...

[blacksword]

I am new to this arguement, but i do have my share to contribute. Below are my main points.

1. Arwen SHOULD NOT be in the whole Ford Scene
Okay, I have a huge problem here. Mr political PJ correct decides there are to few or no xena women in LOTR and decides to butcher the character of Arwen. What the hell is she doing holding a sword and controlling the river. This is so so so wrong. I have heard that some of you say she didnt fight. For the love of mike, she had a sword. what does that say. She is a warrior according to PJ¡¯s eyes. Some one better show me in LOTR where we have elf women warriors. hey what the heck, pJ even says she knows magic. OMG. Did this guy read the book. No elf truly knows magic. they don¡¯t even call it magic. Arwen just does what glorfindel, gandalf and elrond do in the book by summoning the river. Wonder who taught her. And also after what happened to Celebrian, you actually think Elrond will send his only daughter alone to the Ford. I ask again, Did PJ even read the book. I mean wasnt there some other way to introduce her? And the most important question I have to ask; WHY THE HELL DOES ARWEN HAVE TO BE A MAIN CHARACTER IN THE MOVIE? She wasnt in the book. Who cares about PJ having to explain Aragorn getting wed at the end of the movie? He is a king for the love of mike, have a 5 minute clip showing him profess his love for Arewn. Dont go ahead and beat it throughout the whole movie. And who cares about showing enough fighting women. Isnt Eowyn enough. (Probably why aragorn didnt want her anyway...can you imagine the trouble she would be in the house :D ). Seriously i felt like **** during the whole scene. I mean she took away Frodo 's achievement of standing up to the nine. And also Elrond and Gandalf and Glorfindel 's bragging rights. This is the nine nazgul defeated by a magic wielding elf woman...Wow, good one PJ. Not even Luthien could do that...By the way why dont you make galadriel defeat sauron and also Eowyn kill Angmar all by herself. All in political correctness....I say. Some of you might say that this is to focus more on women or ( young boys to see tyler) as an audience, well that is the biggest BS I have heard. If PJ was concerned about leaving women out, I say he should actually go out to the world and see that probably half (if not more) of tolkein fans are women¡_.heck my ex-girlfriend introduced me to the hobbit and the rest is history.

2. Glorfindel matters...well to me.
Some of you say that putting glorfindel in there will be wierd, since he doesnt do anything after wards? One question i have for you guys............SO WHAT? That was the beauty of Glorfindel. We see a super elf kicking butt, and then like that, he is never seen again. What is so hard in showing that in a movie. Who cares if he takes 1min of creen time. Celeborn and a hundred other characters did that in the movie. You might say it doesnt make movie sense, i say it does. Why should all the main characters (which Arwen is not) always do all heroic deeds. This is a great fallacy i see in movies todays. Glorfindel should have been in the movie, he could have been introduced by gandalf or elrond. seriously what would it take. Any actor can play him. Why would you even want to use a big hollywood star to even play him. For the same sake that liv tyler is playing arwen, couldnt some unknown actress play her and then we wouldnt get all this arwen over exposure (i cant even believe she is in TTT...oh boy...she is actually going to be in helms deep...now i am very very afraid).

3. Making Frodo a wuss
I dont even have to go here. Read the chapter on the ford. Watch the movie. If you dont see something wrong, I suggest you read the book 1000000000 times and if you still dont see something wrong, go see a doctor. Frodo stood up to the nine in the book, in the movie he was a wuss. he stabbed Angmar (i think or one of the other nine), in the movie he didnt. Way to go, PJ , Arwen stand ups to the nine where Tolkein absolutely had no intention of her doing so, whereas a great character development of frodo gets waisted. I ask one more question of mr. PJ. Did youi read the book dear sir?

Okay I might be a bit hard on him, but heck that is why I am a fan of Tokein¡¯s work. PJ worked hard but please don¡¯t put BS in the movie where it doesn¡¯t belong. Arwen ¡®s fame at the Ford would not help introduce her. She can introduced by any way¡_or not introduced¡_.why should I care about arwen, only if he has much larger intentions at mind? Do you see where this is going. Arwen will probably take up half ROTK, and probably fighting alongside Aragorn¡_I can just see it. O lord, I beg you, let not this abnormally occur.

Conclusion: Arwen shouldn't have been at the ford period. I cant do carp about it, bit it was pyre BS. It was simply sticking a major star in a role where she had no business. Couldnt you get a no name star to play Arwen and just show her for like the 1 minute that tokein envisages. Heck in the FOTR, Arwen didnt speak a word. Anyway any excuse to having no glorfidnel is plain stupid. i have seen a dozen mivies, where one bit charatcers do great stuff....nothing different here. Anyway if my rant about arwen has you all bothered, sorry i absolutely do not like Arwen. She is so oveerrated it is not even funny. Heck her death after LITR shows that. shie dies all alone. Tolkein didnt like her much.
My lord, i cant beleive that despite all these, i still love this movie. you truly must be a great director to make such an awful mistake and still make a great movie. Shows the state of hollywood today. Sad.

[ReadWryt]

Let me just state again, this thread is NOT about "Should Jackson have replaced Glorfindel in the movie or not?", it is about "In replacing Glorfindel, who would have been better...Arwen or someone else?". There is a perfectly good thread about everything that deals with which version was better and it should be used for that particular discussion, which is not the subject of this thread...Thank you.

[blacksword]

Yes, this is yet another "flight to the ford" thread; although not intended as a criticism of the film-makers' decision to use Arwen instead of Glorfindel

This is what was asked. Right? well my alternative is that no replacement needed. Just stick to the book. All i see from the question is that it is a flight to the ford thread.

[aragil]

Originally posted by Shion
So just for the hell of it- and this may have been done before, but I searched and didn't find a similar thread- let's discuss who else the film-makers could have picked (other than Glorfindel, of course).
Originally posted by Shion
I, too, would have been delighted to see it filmed exactly as Tolkien described it (with Glorfindel), and certainly wasn't trying to improve on Tolkien's writing (nor Jackson's film-making, for that matter). I just thought it might be a fun topic.

Speculation just isn't as much fun when you don't speculate.

[Parrot]

All i see from the question is that it is a flight to the ford thread.
And the “although not intended as a criticism of the film-makers' decision to use Arwen instead of Glorfindel” part? Seems pretty explicit to me.

Anyway, what about Shadowfax? When he finds the party he is carrying some kind of sign (note, rune, stone?) making it clear that he comes from Gandalf. It’s a chance to introduce another recurring character, we get the much-needed horse, we avoid the sticky wicket of introducing the superfluous “super-elf”, there is no call for Arwen’s actions that have caused (and apparently continue to cause, Wow!) so much lost sleep among the purists, Frodo still gets his moment in the sun, and the Arwen/Aragorn subplot can continue through more universally palatable scenes. It’s obviously the perfect solution! ([/sarcasm] kinda sounded like Ulairi right there) Giddy Up!

[aragil]

Reminds me of the time Homer wrote 'Follow me to baby' on SLH using ezcheese. Provided Shadowfax doesn't share SLH's appetite for ezcheese, the same scene might work in FotR.
Of course, the purists might still be upset with the switch:

And the most important question I have to ask; WHY THE HELL DOES SHADOWFAX HAVE TO BE THE MAIN HORSE IN THE MOVIE? He wasn't in the book. Asfolath should have been in the movie.

Actually Parrot, your explanation brings up a question for the books- when Gandalf was approaching Rivendell he drew off a few of the Nazgûl to the south, and then let Shadowfax go in the hilly country. This kept 4 of the Nazgûl away from Rivendell at the proper time, yet still they were able to regroup and attack Frodo at the Ford. Why didn't Gandalf immediately set back out and chase the 4 Nazgûl away, or at least help the Ringbearer get to Rivendell? Was he adopting Dr. Evil's philosophy:

I'm going to allow the Ringbearer to approach Rivendell under disastrous circumstances and just assume everything goes to plan. ... What?

[Parrot]

Mmmmm..... EZCheeeese...... (you know how I'm a sucker for those Simpsons analogies)

Might be getting a little off-topic but along those same lines regarding Gandalf, I always wondered why, having reached Rivendell and not found Frodo, he didn't head to the ford himself as it seems that it was the most logical place for the party to come from. The old "do something even if it's wrong", thing. Maybe this is a mistaken perception on my part so I defer to the ME geography experts to help me out here.