Book Arwen Movie Arwen

[ElvenArcher]

In the books Arwens role is short and sweet, although Peter Jackson kinda went over board with the arwen role, i guess because it was Liv tyler, anyway I gotta go

[Ariana Undomiel]

A lot of debates have already been made over this particular issue. Some thought PJ's exspansion of Arwen's character was overall well done and suitable for the films, while others hated it. I liked it myself.

~Ariana

[Celebthôl]

I loved it coz it was Liv Tyler huhhuhuhuhuhu
er anyway, it needed some love scene as PJ says in one or other of his interviews, the only thing that annoyed me as that Arwen saved the aragorn and the hobbits and not Glorfindel which was better in the book

[Ariana Undomiel]

Yeah, but I agree with those who have said that dropping such an important character like Glorfindel into the movie and then never mentioning him again wouldn't work. It would be too confusing to the audience. As far as movies go, it was a good way to expand on Arwen's role and to introduce her in the film

~Ariana

[Celebthôl]

Yeah i spoze, but the elves only glow like arwen did when they have entered the blessed realm and seen it, but to my knowledge arwen has never been there but glorfindel has, although PJs adaption did make a good scene.

[Princess Vi]

I hated how PJ put in tht much of Arwen. I was looking forward to seeing Grlofindel! he's one of my fav. Elves. no fair!

[joxy]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
....the only thing that annoyed me as that Arwen saved Aragorn and the hobbits and not Glorfindel which was better in the book
Which is the whole point of the change being wrong!
Hardly the "ONLY thing" about it....

[Mrs. Maggott]

Here I go again on my "hobby horse" with this/these particular scene(s):

[1] Arwen would not and COULD not have taken Aragorn unawares. He is a doughty guerilla fighter of 70 years and on hightened alert because of the proximity of the riders. I don't care HOW good she is, she isn't THAT good!

[2] Unless she was an air-head of monumental proportions, she WOULD NOT have attempted any such thing for fear of either or both of them being seriously injured or (in her case) killed.

[3] There have been postings about chivalry and, yes, chivalry was a LARGE part of Tolkien's world. That being the case, can ANYONE seriously believe that a man like Aragorn would have meekly allowed his betrothed to go into such extreme danger - that is, place herself between the Nazgul and their prey? No, no, a thousand times NO! She tells him she is the "better" rider which is simply not believable. She is doubtless the LIGHTER rider, but Aragorn is certainly not so very much heavier that he is going to impede the swiftness of the elf horse. Therefore, there is no possible reason he could acquiesce to her demand to take Frodo and challange the Nine.

I have no problem with Mr. Jackson's expansion of Arwen's role (at least since I decided to "see" the film as the Director's version of LOTR and not the author's), but it's one thing to "expand" something and it's quite another to turn it on it's head till it makes no sense - and that's what Jackson did in these particular scenes. And, alas, from what I have heard of TTT, he probably doesn't stop there. :rolleyes:

[Princess Vi]

I agree with Mrs. Maggott! they ruined Arwen

[Quick Beam]

First of all, Arwen is slightly older and more wise then Aragorn will ever be. You talk about how Aragorn is 70 years old, well Arwen is over 3000. I think she might have learned a few things along the way. DUH!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Frankly, I don't care if Arwen was a million years old. If she had been crawling about in the wild, fighting orcs, waging battles against men, orcs and other servants of the enemy, learning tracking skills and other such things for all of her many years, then I would say she probably would have been a MATCH for - but not necessarily superior to - Aragorn in that situation. But the fact is, that she did NOT spend her time in those pursuits. If she had, one doubts that she would look the way she looks in either the book OR the film.

But even giving you the possibility that she COULD have come up on him unawares (which I still vigorously deny), then there remains the question, WHY would she? If she has "learned" so much through all her years of life as you purport, then she certainly would have learned that you don't attempt to surprise a soldier who is on the alert for a dangerous enemy; you can get KILLED that way. Furthermore, even if she were Aragorn's match with a sword - which one doubts from the point of view of main strength alone - would she be so stupid as to place both of them in danger under the circumstances? This is not a walk through the woods of Rivendell where a lover might play such a game with her beau. It is a deadly serious business with the fate of Middle Earth in the balance.

Let's be realistic here. The whole reason this scene was in the film was for the sake of a cinematic "gotcha"; it was a cheap laugh at the expense of the characters and the story. It made no sense, it diminshed our respect for Aragorn particularly and it mocked the story and the story's creator. Worst of all, it didn't even have the lame excuse used for most of Mr. Jackson's more egregious "artistic interpretations" - it wasn't needed. :mad:

[lilhobo]

he comes in here and throws a grenade and runs lol :D

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
The whole reason this scene was in the film was for the sake of a cinematic "gotcha"; it was a cheap laugh at the expense of the characters and the story.
It didn't even have the lame excuse used for most of Mr. Jackson's more egregious "artistic interpretations" - it wasn't needed.
Yes, PJ indulges himself in cheap laughs more than once, at different levels of importance in the story, and with different effects on characterisations. P&M suffer from the fireworks stunt, Gimli gets the "toss a dwarf" line, etc., etc.
And that excuse DOES wear thin as the "artistry" progresses.

[Princess Vi]

yeah I know! but I thought when Gandalf rolled his eyes in the Council at Rivendell was really funny

[Celebthôl]

Yeah also the hobbits Merry and Pippin are extremily funny coz of their mischief i.e the whole firework stealing thing made me laugh a treat!

[Ariana Undomiel]

I personally liked PJ's exspansion of Arwen. She had almost no character or part in the books and wouldn't it be wierd for a movie to drop in the hero's lover just out of the blue and then never say anything about her until the end of the movie? That just wouldn't work that great. I always wondered about Arwen in the books and I like what PJ did. Although, I hope he doesn't give her a much bigger character because that would definately be pushing the envelope.

~Ariana

[Thorin]

Yeah, but Ariana, PJ could have created fictional scenes to include more of Arwen (like he has in TTT with talks with Elrond and Galadriel) that would have given her more screen time and kept her in character.

By having her (a minor character, even!) come into the scene for the first time as a blazing warrior who all alone defies all the Nazgul at once (something probably even her more powerful ancestors wouldn't have been crazy to do), and stealing the show from other important characters was just a poor characterization of an elven princess beloved by all of elvendom for her inner and outer beauty.

To resort to potraying her (first impression nonetheless) of some sort of mail-dressed, sword-wielding warrior wench is totally different than the way Tolkien portrayed her and it gave the wrong first impression to those who were not familiar with LoTR. Tolkien was quite adamant about drastically altering his characters and that's just what PJ did.....

Horrible, horrible, horrible.."If you want him, come and claim him!" "Hang on Frodo!" AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

[Mrs. Maggott]

As noted, the scenes with Arwen in FOTR in essence emasculated Aragorn.

Think of it: first she is able to take him unawares even when he knows that the Nazgul are still lurking about somewhere waiting to pounce. Her ability to do that means his lack of sufficient skills to prevent it.

Secondly, she demands to take Frodo to the fords (after informing him that he KNOWS she is "the better rider") and he meekly obeys, handing her the horse, the hobbit and the male lead to boot.

Then, on the bridge (the "love scene"), HE appears as the reluctant, insecure, "feminine" character throughout while SHE is presented as the forthright, confident, "masculine" character.

When Arwen is through with Aragorn after these scenes in the movie, it is no wonder Elrond looks upon him with withering contempt and declares that he has "chosen another way" - that is, denied his birthright and fled from his heritage.

Frankly, it takes some time - and not a few desperate battles - before the character once more could be judged by the audience as being a "man", never mind a leader! :mad:

[Ariana Undomiel]

Frankly, I think that Aragorn probably was right in letting Arwen take Frodo. In the book he let Glorfindel take Frodo. For crying out loud he let the horse take care of Frodo. Arwen is an ELF! She has been alive like 2950 years longer than him and she knows what she is doing. It didn't undermine his character in my mind at all. And she didn't appear to be a warrior to me really. She just wasn't afraid. She never actually fought the Nazgul. She just rode on a really fast horse to the other side of the river and then called the river to wipe out the black riders. That tender scene on the other side of the river really showed her tender beauty and her grace. I thought it was wonderful. Also, the scene on the bridge was tender and romantic. Aragorn hesitated in taking Arwen as his betrothed because he loved her so much he didn't want her to sacrifice eternity for him. She on the other hand loved him so much that she was willing to give up her imortality. She came out as the stronger character because she was willing to live with him, but he was unwilling to let her. So it showed a tender side of him which will be good for the audience when the two are reunited forever in the end of the return of the king.

But afterall it is all opinion isn't it?

~Ariana

[Mrs. Maggott]

You are right when you say that <itb> it is the HORSE who saves Frodo. But we have learned from Glorfindle that the horse is not just a horse, but an almost sentient animal - very like Shadowfax - and that the Elf believes that when push comes to shove, his horse will outrace the Riders to the ford. After that, he did not worry because Elrond controlled the waters of the Bruinen and no one could gain access to the valley of Rivendell whom he wished to keep out.

On the other hand, when Aragorn turns Frodo over to Arwen <itf>, the horse is just a horse, however swift. It might be possible - especially as the whereabouts of the Nine are unknown at that time - for whomever is with the Bearer on the horse, to be forced to FIGHT! This is not just a horse race. They don't know where the Nine are and it might very well have come to another armed confrontation. In that instance, it was not only folly to allow Arwen to take the Bearer, it was criminal incompetence if only from the point of view of saving the Bearer AND the Ring from being taken - never mind the consequences to Arwen.

Remember too, <itb> Glorfindel does not relinquish his oversight of Frodo until the fords are in sight. Only then with the Riders closing in, does he leave all to his faithful steed. Before that, he is present with Aragorn to defend the Bearer if the need had arisen.

However, <inf> for whatever reason, it seems that Weathertop is within a short ride of the ford instead of a two week plus journey. <itb> Aragorn tells the hobbits that on his own, he could make the ford in two weeks from that point, so we must assume that the distance between the two was considerable and by the time the ford was near, neither the Fellowship nor Glorfindel were exactly sure of the location of the Nine except to know that they were in pursuit.

Therefore, to equate the relinquishing of the Bearer to Glorfindel and his elven horse <itb> to the business with Arwen in the dark DIRECTLY AFTER THE BATTLE WITH THE NAZGUL on Weathertop (which would mean that they were close by) as was presented <itf> is simply wrong; they are not the same situation. Whomever was carrying the Bearer <itf> would most probably become engaged in a physical confrontation with the Nine and therefore it is not realistic to believe that Aragorn would have allowed Arwen to place herself in that position.

[Talimon]

You fail to acknowledge one simple fact: For all we know Rivendell is a days ride from where Arwen meets up with them. Again you are comparing distances/charachters/events to the book. The movie only has to abide by it's own rules. Bree is an excellent example. Everyone says it was much farther then the movie made it seem. But the movie never assumes that you'd know how far it is, and as such can make up it's own distances.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I acknowledged in my post that the distances in the two sources are different and I also pointed out that that difference made what happened <itf> all the LESS believable.

Aragorn would not have permitted Arwen to take Frodo and ride off with him alone knowing that the Riders were nearby (which they were) and most probably were between Weathertop and the ford (which they were). If anything, the "distance variable" <itf> makes the Director's scenario LESS believable or excusable for that reason alone. With the Nine that close and no clear run to the ford (as evident in the film), it meant that whomever was with the Bearer in the attempt to reach the ford risked actual physical combat such as had already taken place on Weathertop. Are you seriously going to suggest that given the character of Aragorn, he would have acquiesced to sending Arwen into such deadly danger not only alone (you certainly CAN'T count the weakened, wounded Frodo!) but encumbered by her burden, the Bearer?? If you believe this scenario, it only further goes to prove just how much Jackson has emasculated the character of Aragorn and how difficult it is going to be to "rebuild" him into a believable leader and King. :rolleyes:

[Parrot]

It is one thing to disagree with the changes PJ makes, it is completely another to blatantly misrepresent what he actually did do…..
Think of it: first she is able to take him unawares even when he knows that the Nazgul are still lurking about somewhere waiting to pounce. Her ability to do that means his lack of sufficient skills to prevent it.
Several considerations here;
-Nazgul’s main weapons are fear and numbers, they don’t “lurk”, and stealthy attack is not a big concern,
-he is somewhat preoccupied, desperately looking for the athelas to help Frodo,
-last, but certainly not least, she is a 2000+ year old half-elven raised in Lorien by Galadriel, not some bumbling teenage girl popping bubblegum. Maybe, just maybe, she can move pretty quietly through woods when she knows there is danger about.
Secondly, she demands to take Frodo to the fords (after informing him that he KNOWS she is "the better rider") and he meekly obeys, handing her the horse, the hobbit and the male lead to boot.
Upon further review, she “demands” nothing, but makes her case that she is the “faster” (lighter?) rider, to which he does not “meekly” submit, but instead argues that it is “too dangerous”. She counters with the fact that once “she” reaches the river “the power of her people” will protect Frodo. The kicker? Maybe. Contrasted with his other option of taking her horse and leaving her out there with the other hobbits, knowing there are at least five riders behind them; sending her on doesn’t seem so indefensible to me. As for the “male lead”, that is your, highly subjective, opinion.
Then, on the bridge (the "love scene"), HE appears as the reluctant, insecure, "feminine" character throughout while SHE is presented as the forthright, confident, "masculine" character.
Again, your, by no means unanimous, interpretation. When did being unsure of your course in life become synonymous with “feminine”? And why didn’t I get the memo?
When Arwen is through with Aragorn after these scenes in the movie, it is no wonder Elrond looks upon him with withering contempt
Yes, I’m sure that taking Arwen’s horse, against her counsel, and leaving her in the wild with three hobbits to look after, directly between the Nazgul and their pursuit of the ring, would have been a big-hit with Pops, “Who? Arwen?… She’s ummmm…… heh, heh….. ahhhh…..” :rolleyes:

[Mrs. Maggott]

To begin with, the Riders DO lurk. They are not given to frontal assaults but stealthily approach the hobbits and Strider on Weathertop. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that unlike the book, the run to the ford <itf> is made in darkness WHEN THE NAZGUL ARE AT THEIR STRONGEST and not daylight.

Secondly, Aragorn would not be leaving the other hobbits and Arwen at the mercy of the Nine because THEY WOULD FOLLOW THE BEARER and THAT IS EXACTLY WHY HE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN HER HORSE AND LEFT HER BEHIND. He knew that the Nazgul would pursue Frodo; they were not interested in the rest of the Fellowship INCLUDING Arwen - unless, of course, she was with the Bearer. Instead of your scenario - that is, Aragorn explaining to Elrond why he left his daughter BEHIND in danger, as it is presented <itf>, he now has to explain to Elrond why he sent his daughter INTO danger and furthermore, by so doing endangered the quest as well.

As for Aragorn being preoccupied by his search for athelas, that would be a very poor excuse indeed for him to have let his guard down to the point where ANYONE could have approached him unawares. One assumes that many times in the past he had matters on his mind that would have similarly preoccupied him. The fact that he is alive to participate in the Quest suggests that they did NOT reduce his level of vigilance. This particular scene in the movie required a suspension of belief above and beyond that which should be demanded of any audience by the Director.

And as for using as a premise for the above, Arwen's age and her lineage etc. etc..... well, that's fine for what it is, but for heaven's sake it is NOT a carte blanche which makes her a cross between an Amazon and Wonderwoman. Don't tell me she spent all those years fighting the enemy as a shield maiden because if she did, I'll bet you dollars to mushrooms that her looks wouldn't have turned ANYONE'S head, even Aragorn's. Elves are a lot of things, but they are not omnipotent. They can be (and have been) beaten in battle. They have unique physical attributes, but as we don't see Legolas single-handedly defeating the orc hoards in Moria, we must assume that super-human strength is not one of them.

But even granting your position - and, frankly, I cannot - again I must ask if it would be the chivalric thing to do for Aragorn to send her against nine adversaries everyone considers to be extremely dangerous while also knowing that these fiends will do ANYTHING necessary to capture the Bearer and the Ring? Forget "feminism" here; it would not have applied in Tolkien's world and if it applies in Jackson's, he's even further away from his material source than I supposed.

Parenthetically, the bridge scene is lovely, but there is still entirely too much hesitancy and innate weakness on Aragorn's part. If he feels that he should relinquish her love, then he should make that clear to her unquivocally and strongly enough for her (and us) to have no doubt about it; let's stop the mumbling and stumbling. If she then refuses to be released (and since there is no mention of a betrothal, the whole scene is academic anyway), then let her make that statement. At that point, I don't mind if he relents and accepts her will. But to my mind at least, in these scenes there is entirely TOO MUCH of Arwen's "will" and not enough of Aragorn's to make his leadership - still less his future kingship - believable.

Furthermore, to predicate this confusion of gender attributes upon Arwen's "lineage" and/or her "age", well, I'm sorry. None of that either excuses or makes this role-reversal acceptable when one is left with the perception of a strong, dominating woman and a weak, irresolute man. The story AND the characters of Aragorn and Arwen deserved better. :confused:

[Leto]

My only real problem with the whole scene, from weathertop to the ford, was that it made a change to Frodo's character. Arwen there would have been fine if the rest of the scene had been like the book. Put Frodo on the horse, and let him defy the Nazgul. Show how tough he is (or is supposed to be)...so that the weight of the ring later on is that much more poignient. As is, we see Frodo in the movie as a little wuss who needs everyone to save him...(and I guess later on we'll see him gain strength, rather than gradually loosing it).

As for Arwen's character, it's fairly nonexistent in the books...so anything in the movie is an invention of PJ.

[Thorin]

Yes, this stubborn purist will submit to that fact: Had Arwen only replaced Glorfindel (minus the glorious glowing to scare the Nazgul into the river) and she only put Frodo on the horse to do his own thing, I would have only minorly grumbled (even with the "sneaking up on the ranger" thing)....But after that, I have nothing but contempt and disgust with the way PJ did things....

[Parrot]

I agree Leto and have said virtually the same thing in the past. I’m not married to how Arwen was portrayed either but I just think too much is made of it sometimes. Besides, what fun is a debate where everyone is on the same side? Good post, Mrs. Maggott. I could refute many of your points again but it’s quittin’ time and what would be the point really? As Ariana said several posts ago, it is mostly a matter of opinion, and what is “simply wrong” for you, maybe is “okay” for others.

I do have to add though that I really hope to catch in the extended version this scene where Arwen/Xena/Amazon/Wonderwoman slices and dices and whoops everybody’s butt. I seem to keep missing it. Must be a glitch in the tape or some mental block on my part; all I ever see her do is ride a horse (pretty capably though) and sucker the Keystone Wraiths into following her across the river.

[Talimon]

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that unlike the book, the run to the ford <itf> is made in darkness WHEN THE NAZGUL ARE AT THEIR STRONGEST and not daylight.

I suggest that if you are going to criticize the movie do so objectively. The ride to the ford is made in the bright daylight, indeed the cinematography in that scene is so incredible that I can only assume you have either not seen the film or have a very, very hazy memory.

The story AND the characters of Aragorn and Arwen deserved better.

Interestingly enough in the book there is no story between Aragorn and Arwen, which makes one wonder where your romantic ideas about thier "story" come from... It is only in the appendices that we hear anything, and that is long after we've read that Aragorn and Arwen have already married. Now I'm not saying Tolkien did it wrong, but when it comes to making a movie you either cut Arwen out completely, marriage and all, or flesh out her charachter.

Secondly, you claim Aragorn has "innate weakness"? Like Parrot says, since when did expressing your fears to the one your love equate with "weakness"? Indeed, from where do you even assume Aragorn is the "dominating" one in the relationship? There is nothing wrong with using your imagination to fill in parts of the story, but surely you can't argue that just because the movie doesn't accomidate your imagination it's at fault?

From a purely cinematic stand-point, those scenes were extremely important. Up to that point we see a very hard-line Aragorn. Those scenes showed that he was deeper. It's not like he stepped up in the middle of the Council and told everyone his fears. He'd never do that. It's just something between him, Arwen, and the audience. Quite frankly, it adds depth. I don't know what it is you like about Aragorn in the books, but I certainly should like to hope it's more then just his courage and ability in combat. His charachter is deeper then that, and PJ is fleshing that out. It makes the charachter (and thus the movie) better.

again I must ask if it would be the chivalric thing to do for Aragorn to send her against nine adversaries everyone considers to be extremely dangerous while also knowing that these fiends will do ANYTHING necessary to capture the Bearer and the Ring?

He never sent her against them. Indeed, part of her arguement for going is that "If I get across the river, the power of my people will protect him." Obviously she doesn't plan on fighting them. Indeed, were that her wish, she'd oppose them when she met them. Why then does she ride for her life in fear? She knows Elrond is expecting her to come back. Indeed, the question you aught to be asking is, were Elrond so intent on her safety to begin with, why would he send her out to look for them? As you can tell, the movie Elrond trusts in the ability of his daughter to keep herself safe. Now maybe this isn't exactly the same way the book Elrond would have handled the situation, but as I've stated before the movie sets it's own rules. I don't think this change, directly or indirectly, hurts any of the charachters. For Arwen/Aragorn it only adds.

I do have to add though that I really hope to catch in the extended version this scene where Arwen/Xena/Amazon/Wonderwoman slices and dices and whoops everybody’s butt. I seem to keep missing it. Must be a glitch in the tape or some mental block on my part; all I ever see her do is ride a horse (pretty capably though) and sucker the Keystone Wraiths into following her across the river.

Thank you Parrot for repeating what I've said forever... Arwen never fights or seriously opposes any of the Nazgul. The most she does is rip out her sword and challenge them, which is only the type of courage one would expect from the daughter of Elrond. But notice that they hardly fear her, and as they come closer she proceeds to lowers her sword and resort to other means..

[joxy]

Originally posted by Parrot
....he is somewhat preoccupied, desperately looking for the athelas to help Frodo
-
This just isn't good enough: somewhat of a preoccupation with plant-hunting isn't an excuse for being sneaked up on by anyone. Arwen couldn't have sneaked up on him- she wouldn't have taken such a foolish risk, and he couldn't have been taken by surprise - his ranger skills would have prevented it.
Where was Arwen's horse when she did the sneaking, and why did she mount it for the short trip back to the hobbits? Why did Aragorn leave M&P and F unguarded? The whole Arwen episode is full of questions.

[Ariana Undomiel]

Oh brother this whole argument is really pointless. I mean everyone can have their own opinion about the whole scene. But the movie has been made and it's a done deal. The scene is not a moral issue so get over it! It is my opinion that it was a good scene, Arwen was cool, Frodo was rescued, Aragorn was not feminine. But, that is all my opinion and you can have whatever opinion you want.

~Ariana

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel
Oh brother this whole argument is really pointless. I mean everyone can have their own opinion about the whole scene. But the movie has been made and it's a done deal. The scene is not a moral issue so get over it! It is my opinion that it was a good scene, Arwen was cool, Frodo was rescued, Aragorn was not feminine. But, that is all my opinion and you can have whatever opinion you want.

~Ariana

Ideally I'd be like you Ariana and just let it be :). I try to show some restraint, ussually, but sometimes people push my buttons and I can't help but replying. Obviously this is all opinion, we're just running around the bush (at times quite naively, unfortunately :(). But so long as no-body gets hurt it's just words anyway ;).

[Mrs. Maggott]

Certainly, the viewer may have any opinion he or she wishes BUT that person cannot then say that Jackson's version is "the same or almost the same" as Tolkien's.

As for opinion: it is NOT opinion to say that the Riders would abandon the remaining Fellowship and follow the Bearer. That point was made clear (by Glorfindel) <itb> and as Jackson does not openly refute it, we may assume that the same applies <itf>. Therefores, sending Arwen on with Frodo, however short the distance or whatever time of day, is to send her INTO extreme danger. Whether or not "her people" will provide protection once they CROSS - not REACH - the ford, is irrelevant. They have to reach AND cross the ford to acquire that protection. Otherwise, they - and the Quest - are in deadly peril.

The scene on the bridge must be viewed in the context of the relationship Jackson has already established between the characters. In the Weathertop scenes, Arwen is DEFINITELY the stronger; she dominates and her decree is meekly accepted despite the dangers which obtain therefrom. This is bound to become linked with other scenes between the two and influence the viewer's perspective of the characters. Unless one was out getting popcorn during "Weathertop to the ford", when the bridge scene takes place, the viewer already KNOWS which one is dominant in the relationship - and it ain't Aragorn.

Arwen and Aragorn married in Gondor after he became King. They were betrothed for many years, but NOT married. And you are right, their relationship was not developed in LOTR because it was not necessary to the story. Jackson determined to bring it to the forefront of the plot line and by so doing, had to diminish something else for the sake of time. In my opinion, what was sacrified was the development of the hobbits. Frankly, it is no wonder that Scouring of the Shire was considered an anticlimax and eliminated from the film. When you move the central characters into subordinate roles, then the "climax" of THEIR story would certainly be an anticlimax to the rest of the story.

[Parrot]

I guess I can't hold my tongue either Talimon.
Okay, I will concede that my defense for the sneak is something of a stretch though I really don't think he needed to be concerned with a ninja-like approach from a Nazgul, it is simply not their M.O. As for the foolish risk, is he really going to draw a sword or kill her with his bare hands before he realizes who she is, even after she has spoken? But, all that being said, I could live without the sneak too.
As for opinion: it is NOT opinion to say that the Riders would abandon the remaining Fellowship and follow the Bearer. That point was made clear (by Glorfindel) <itb> and as Jackson does not openly refute it, we may assume that the same applies <itf>.
It is most DEFINITELY opinion, because it was Glorfindel's opinion in the book. It turned out be the correct opinion but it was still opinion just the same. Even if we allow that the same rules apply, we then must also assume that Aragorn knows as much about the riders as Glorfindel and knows it and with even more certainty than Glorfindel's "I think", as the life of his beloved may hang in the balance. Furthermore, the Nazgul's ring-radar (to borrow a phrase) has already been shown to be less than perfect (they couldn't find it within spittin' distance for criminy's) and the Nazgul are apparently still split-up at that point, so who knows exactly what might transpire. But let's go further and assume they do correctly follow the ring and rider, and Aragorn and Frodo outrace them to Rivendell where they are turned back. Now, at this point, any evil henchman worth the title will turn back and hunt the remainder of the party to ply for information, and will find a nice bonus bargaining chip in the daughter of Elrond. Aragorn has left her out to dry, has he not? Not very dang chivalric of him, especially considering the fate of her mother.:(

Upon her arrival Arwen gives Aragorn a sit-rep that there are five riders behind them and she does not know where the others are. With the intel Aragorn had, letting her speed away from the known danger was as good a decision as any, IMO. I hate to sound like the old Southron, but you can't use you knowledge of future events to impugn the decision he made at the time. In the states we call this Monday Morning Quarterbacking. The nature of leadership is making difficult decisions and that is what Aragorn did. It seems to me that you, Mrs. Maggott, are the one demanding an unreasonable level of omniscience from one of the characters. Aragorn was the best of all men, but he was not infallible or all-knowing, nor should he, again, IMO.

[Mrs. Maggott]

It is you who are making decisions based upon speculation. The Riders would follow the Bearer. Glorfindel made a fairly confident statement about this, not a mere speculation, when Frodo declares that he will not ride off and desert his friends, to which Glorfindel (with Aragorn's assent) states that the pursuit will follow him and therefore it is unnecessary to fear for those he leaves behind.

Again, it might be different <itf>, but Jackson has not led us to to believe that the Nine are concerned with anything save the bearer. However, even if you are unwilling to concede that point, doubtless Aragorn would have considered it. He knows that the Nazgul are "attracted" to the Ring, however imperfectly, and that they are probably aware or at least suspicious of the Fellowship's destination (where the heck else can they be going in that godforsaken place?). Therefore, tactically, they would have placed themselves between Weathertop and the (now nearby) ford. That being the case, anyone making for the ford is going to run into the Riders (as was, in fact, the case).

In the situation as it exists, Aragorn must do the best he can to preserve everyone, but ESPECIALLY the Bearer. Therefore, knowing that the Nazgul are near and that there might - and probably will be - another armed confrontation with them, he would NOT send Arwen off with the Bearer. It makes no sense either strategically or as a matter of chivalry. She's in danger just BEING there, no matter what he does; that is a factor that he cannot avoid or prevent. Far better that he should take the horse AND the Bearer and (as Gandalf did <itb>) draw pursuit after him and leave the rest to proceed to Rivendell as best they can. True, there may be problems with any Riders who are behind them, but as he has no "sure-fire" way of protecting Arwen once she has placed herself in that position, he can only do what is best under the existing circumstances not only for her and the rest, but for the Quest.

This is not a matter of "knowing the future" or of any kind of "omniscience", but of considering the tactical situation as it existed at the moment and acting in the best possible way. If as a Ranger, Aragorn cannot quickly and correctly assess a tactical situation and act on it, then, pray tell, what skills DOES he possess besides a strong sword arm? :rolleyes:

[Parrot]

True, there may be problems with any Riders who are behind them, but as he has no "sure-fire" way of protecting Arwen once she has placed herself in that position, he can only do what is best under the existing circumstances not only for her and the rest, but for the Quest.
Exactly the point; and I would say he did correctly assess the situation without allowing chivalry to cloud his judgment. Any armed confrontation is probably going to be lost, even if it is Aragorn. The best hope for the quest is speed and the protection that Rivendell can provide Arwen. Rock on. Out.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Any armed confrontation is probably going to be lost, even if it is Aragorn. (quote Parrott)

And why would you say that? We just had a big "fight" scene where Aragorn prevails and drives the Riders away!! Admittedly, they didn't go far, but they WENT! Why might he not prevail again, at least through the use of superior horsemanship and weight? Remember, knights used their own horse plus their OWN WEIGHT as a weapon against the horses of other knights - just one more reason why the lighter, weaker Arwen would have been a bad choice to carry the Bearer!

The problem with the scenarios as presented <itf> are that NONE of them are sure-fire winners, or even GOOD, for that matter. They are all exercises in EXTREME danger. Therefore, given the tactical problem as it existed at the time, Aragorn WOULD have taken the horse and hoped to outwit, outride and/or outfight the Riders to bring the Bearer safely across the ford into Elrond's protection. True, he would have had to leave the others behind and in possible danger, but his first duty was to get the Ring (and nothing else) to the safety of Rivendell. If that meant that he had to leave Arwen in danger, as Faramir once said, so be it. Frankly, for a true Warrior King, the choice would have been simple - not EASY, mind, but simple nonetheless.

If later on, Elrond had a hissy-fit over his daughter's danger, the question might then be asked, what was HE doing when she decided to leave the safety of Rivendell and join the fray? After all, I don't remember the "bat signal" being lit; she placed herself in danger all on her ancient, elven-lineage, smarter-than-everybody own. :rolleyes:

[Parrot]

Therefore, given the tactical problem as it existed at the time, Aragorn WOULD have taken the horse and hoped to outwit, outride and/or outfight the Riders to bring the Bearer safely across the ford into Elrond's protection.

Okay maybe I'm not out. I really hoped to get some work done today but this is fun. Aragorn had fire and his own element of surprise at Weathertop, not so now. And most knights didn't pack around comatose hobbits to aid in their jousting. Actually, the tactical situation is not that different than in the book, though the distances are somewhat different apparently. In the book, the group is originally beset from behind. Glorfindel hears horses behind them and tells Frodo to fly, before ever seeing how many riders there are. They are still some distance from the ford at this point. If movie Aragorn must realize the ford will be held ahead of them and armed confrontation is a virtual certainty, then shouldn't book Aragorn and storied warrior Glorfindel realize the same thing? (which they do)
'Our peril will be greatest just ere we reach the river,' said Glorfindel; 'for my heart warns me that the pursuit is now swift behind us, and other danger may be waiting by the Ford.'
And if movie Aragorn "WOULD" jump on the horse and offer fire support to the bearer then why wouldn't book Aragorn do the same?? So, seemingly the far superior book Aragorn AND GLORFINDEL drop the same tactical ball? The answer is because in either case the speed of Asfaloth is their real hope and that speed is tops when he is minimally encumbered by the lightest, fastest, rider possible.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Are we having fun yet? Yes!

True, <itb> only the elf horse's speed will save the Bearer. Although Glorfindel is able to attack the Riders who don't immediately perish in the flood and drive them back into the raging waters, the simple truth is that it is the HORSE (under his Master's command since Frodo hangs back at the Riders' call) who saves the day.

HOWEVER, having said that, remember the difference in the two "chases". <Itb> it is a straight run over open ground to the ford which is within sight (and remember, their are four Riders in front as well as the five behind in that chase!). <Itf> it is through trees and over obstacles which means that it is not SPEED alone that is required, but deft horsemanship and main strength. True, Aragorn would have been encumbered by Frodo, but, then, so would Arwen. As he was undoubtedly the stronger, he would have had less of a problem compensating for the burden.

Yes, at Weathertop Aragorn had fire and possibly surprise, although I doubt it; by now the Riders knew who and what they were pursuing. But mounted he still had the advantage as the Riders had some difficulty maintaining their "seat" because they were, in fact, "nothing" covered by cloaks (remember, Gandalf <itb> states that they will have to make their way back to Sauron as best they can "empty" since they lost their cloaks as well as their horses in the flood). This means that, if he had been forced into contact with any one (or more) of them, Aragorn had the ability to use his horse as a ram to throw their horses off stride and perhaps even unseat its Rider.

And, again remember, even if the RIDERS couldn't be killed, their HORSES could! A well placed sword stroke could have seriously inhibited any Nazgul's ability to stay in the chase! Arwen, too, had a sword (who can forget it!), but her reach was considerably shorter than his which meant that she would have had to get closer to strike a blow, a dangerous move at best since her lesser strength might not have been able to hold the Bearer if a Rider were to have grabbed him!

In any event, whatever strategy he would have had to use to evade them, a male warrior was a far better bet for success under those circumstances than a female no matter how sterling her other qualities. :)

[Thorin]

[i]Originally posted by Parrot
And if movie Aragorn "WOULD" jump on the horse and offer fire support to the bearer then why wouldn't book Aragorn do the same?? So, seemingly the far superior book Aragorn AND GLORFINDEL drop the same tactical ball? The answer is because in either case the speed of Asfaloth is their real hope and that speed is tops when he is minimally encumbered by the lightest, fastest, rider possible. [/B]

So now, not only has Arwen replaced Glorfindel, she has also stolen his horse. One must assume, therefore, that the Arwen thing is only believable provided she has Asfaloth. For it was only because of the speed of Asfaloth that Frodo made it as far. It was the horse, not the person that made the difference....In the movie, it is because of the great strength and skill of Arwen. What a feat considering she was never there to begin with!

Oh, but wait a minute, being an Elf, she would have had a superior horse as well! Amazing! All this speculation over fabrication! And who says that the change was less complicated then what Tolkien wrote?

IMO, this whole thing is nothing more than a big complicated exercise in futility. It was a ridiculous change, and it makes things more confusing and complicated then if PJ had kept it the way it was....And everyone is justifying and defending it as if Tolkien would have personally endorsed it, by arguing the minutest details....

[Mrs. Maggott]

There is something here that I don't think is being considered: Jackson elevated the "romance" if you will, between Aragorn and Arwen to an important place <itf> whereas, <itb> it is only referenced a few times and the story itself is saved for the Appendix. There can be no doubt that all the "extra screen time" accorded Arwen (over which there has been so much dispute) is the result of Jackson moving this not-even-a-subplot <itb> to a place of prominence in the film.

Now, when that happens, something else must happen as well. The film is, let's say for the sake of argument, three hours long. That means whatever is going to take place is going to have to take place in those three hours. When you move a NEW plot-line into the story, perforce, something has to go! There simply isn't enough room to have everything that was originally <itb> <itf> because instead of "editing" things (as we have been told Jackson did), he has actually ADDED a new plot-line!

Furthermore, the Director has also greatly enlarged Saruman from his original part in the story line. That means that we have TWO added plot-lines in the film! What then, has to be REMOVED to make room for what has been ADDED? We can't downplay Gandalf; he's a pivotal character. Aragorn has been diminished as a man by Jackson's interpretation, but he still gets lots of screen time (as does Arwen). We have to have Boromir, he, too, is pivotal in the first story at least. Bilbo must be well covered since he sets the stage for what comes after and his role, like Boromir's is limited anyway. Gimli and Legolas are not large parts despite their role in the Fellowship so to cut them further would be to remove them entirely.

So, I ask, what's left? Why, the hobbits, of course! That's why Jackson could so easily leave out all that took place between leaving Bag End and arriving at Bree (except the ferry, of course) and simply dismiss the Scouring of the Shire at the end of the film. After all, since the hobbits are no longer the MAIN CHARACTERS (as they WERE <itb>), the "climax" of their story becomes an "anti-claimax" in the overall film. Perhaps those who were "disappointed" with Frodo or Sam or Merry and Pippin and thought it might have been the fault of the actor(s), were, in fact, really disappointed with just how far down the "totem pole" of importance the hobbits were in Mr. Jackson's LOTR. :confused:

[joxy]

Originally posted by Thorin
So now, not only has Arwen replaced Glorfindel, she has also stolen his horse.
IMO, this whole thing is nothing more than a big complicated exercise in futility. It was a ridiculous change, and it makes things more confusing and complicated then if PJ had kept it the way it was
Yes, she has stolen Asfaloth: she, very quietly but clearly, calls him by his name. Of course, that doesn't tell the non-Tolkienian part of the audience anything, so I don't know why PJ bothered.
And yes, you have put your finger right on the problem: T took 20 years to get his story right; PJ decided that it wasn't good enough, or that he didn't like it, or presciently that audiences wouldn't like it, and changed and added to it. He didn't take 20 years over the changes, and the result IS, quite understandably, "more confusing and complicated", as you say.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
That means that we have TWO added plot-lines in the film! What then, has to be REMOVED to make room for what has been ADDED?Perhaps those who were "disappointed" with Frodo or Sam or Merry and Pippin and thought it might have been the fault of the actor(s), were, in fact, really disappointed with just how far down the "totem pole" of importance the hobbits were in Mr. Jackson's LOTR.
And not only two added plot-lines, but also scenes that are little more than irritating padding: from orc-birthing and wizard-swinging down to broken carrot and sword-practice. They would have been bearable, maybe even enjoyable, if the thought wasn't there all the time that we have had to accept major omissions and changes, and that this all combines to remove all those things that Mrs M goes on to list.
The hobbits are a good example- as you indicate, they just didn't get enough chance to show how important they are, what their real characters are- and indeed, how good their actors could be.

[Parrot]

And everyone is justifying and defending it as if Tolkien would have personally endorsed it, by arguing the minutest details....
Feel free to put words in "everyone"'s mouths Thorin. I for one have not mentioned Tolkien one way or the other here. I was discussing Mrs. M's contention that the move was indefensible from the context of the movie. But since you are apparently the self-appointed arbiter of what is valid debate and find it so distasteful I will desist....

btw, in the movie, the horse's name is Asfaloth, hence my reference. And yeah, call me crazy, but I think Arwen would be pretty well-mounted.

Truly OUT.

[lilhobo]

the major gripe against Arwen was and is that she took away the characterisation of Frodo ! Merry and Pippin are there just to enhance frodo!

Just like in Aliens, when Sigorney lifted off on the ship, you know the Alien Mother has gotten on board but it still made cinematic scene. SOS would have been more susprise and great cinematic sense to enhance the loss and failure of Frodo

[Mrs. Maggott]

It is not so much that Arwen "took away" from Frodo, but that the focus of the film on the relationship between Arwen and Aragorn (that was NOT there <itb>) led to less time being spent developing the hobbits and their interdependence. Sam and Frodo aren't too bad, but not nearly enough of their Servant/Master symbiosis is developed to make meaningful Sam's absolute loyalty to Frodo as the film progresses. And as for Merry and Pippin, the film doesn't give ANY indication that their involvement in the quest was VOLUNTARY and not simply an accident.

The simple fact is that the hobbits are considerably downplayed as characters in the film in order to allow a larger part to the Arwen/Aragorn characters and the enlargement of Saruman. As that is the case, then the incidents pertaining to them - the Old Forest, Tom Bombadil, the Barrow Downs and Scouring of the Shire - are in fact either unnecessary (the story can "do without" it) or anticlimactic. For although SoS is the climax of the HOBBITS' story, since the hobbits are no longer the central characters, their story is in fact "anticlimactic".

Parenthetically, because the time and space sequence <itf> between Weathertop and the ford of the Bruinen is contracted into only a few hours and several miles (rather than several weeks and many miles <itb>), Frodo's wound has to be made much more serious. He is therefore quickly reduced virtually to helplessness and not able to ride alone to the ford and defie the Riders. As noted, for Frodo as well as Aragorn, Arwen's enlarged roll has meant a diminution of their chacters. :mad:

[lilhobo]

Saruman was the major mistake; he s gonna be in TTT, why expand his role so much in the first film

Arwen just went along for the ride with frodo or so PJ thought, ehr scene in Rivendell was to break up the chase mentality

[Talimon]

Parenthetically, because the time and space sequence <itf> between Weathertop and the ford of the Bruinen is contracted into only a few hours and several miles (rather than several weeks and many miles <itb> ),

There is no way you could know it was "only a few hours". In fact, it obviously isn't just a few hours, because he is stabbed at night yet crosses the Ford by the day.

Just nit-picking the nit-pickers ;).

[lilhobo]

sorry Harrrtalimon, but ya aint too good at picking nits :D

[Mrs. Maggott]

Okay! Borrowed the film from the kiddies last night because I was working on memory which for me was never a reliable thing. I CAREFULLY watched this particular part so that I could be (relatively) accurate and found the following:

"The Bridge and Rivendell Reading Room" Scenes: they were okay except for the Director's change to Aragorn's character that makes him "afraid" of his heritage. <Itb>, Aragorn respects and admires Isildur although he does admit his fault in not destroying the Ring. He refers to his ancestor as "great" and if he has any question at all, it has to do with himself, NOT his heritage (when Boromir looks at him speculatively after being told of his identity, he replies that he is merely "Isildur's heir, NOT Isildur himself". <Itf>, apparently Aragorn believes that his bloodline is "tainted" by Isildur's weakness.

"The Weathertop to the fords" Scenes: boy, if I was mistaken for being somewhat over-critical in the above scenes, I was mistaken for not being critical enough of these scenes!

The first thing that caught my eye is something Sam says so quietly that it can easily be lost if one is not paying attention: to wit, that the fords of the Bruinen ARE SIX DAYS AWAY!!!! Well, after that, I sat up and REALLY took notice! SIX DAYS??!? With that little bit of info at my disposal, I carefully watched what I had forgotten in the interim; that is, Aragorn slings Frodo onto his back and runs off through the woods with the hobbits (and their pony which he never considers using as a means of transporting the wounded hobbit!) trailing along behind. Finally, we get to the point where Frodo is "passing" into the wraith world and Aragorn begins the search for athelas (which took place <itb> the very NIGHT of the attack, not however many days later). Now by this time, we really don't know how much further it is to the fords, but one assumes that they haven't been running for five days!

At this point, Arwen appears (spectacularly stupidly, in my humble opinion) and "calls" to Frodo in hopes of preventing him from slipping further under the spell of his wound. I had no problem with this interpretation although I would have liked Aragorn's healing propensities ALSO brought out since THE HANDS OF THE KING ARE THE HANDS OF A HEALER and is one of the talismans by which he is recognized eventually in Gondor as the true King.

Then we get to the crux of the matter: Aragorn is about to mount behind Frodo and tells Arwen that he will "send horses back" for her and the rest of the hobbits. At that point, she makes her bid to take Frodo, stating that she is the "faster" rider. Please, what's a "faster" rider? One may be a "better" rider, or a "lighter" rider, but unless one is carrying the horse (and in which case, one would not be a "rider" at all), it is not possible to be a "faster" rider. She then tells him perhaps the stupidist thing that anyone has said so far, to wit: she is "not afraid" of the Riders. Goodness, even GANDALF is afraid of the Nine. But big, bad, warrior-Arwen isn't "afraid", no way! If this doesn't raise caution flags regarding her judgment, then nothing will.

We are then treated to several scenes of her with the Bearer riding furiously through various different landscapes which leads one to believe that the journey would be measured in days rather than hours. If in fact this is the case, then Aragorn's decision to allow her to take the Bearer goes from foolish to criminal. I had believed that she got on the horse with Frodo and made a run to the fords which were relatively close by. That would have been bad enough but, if in fact the trip took more than a day, then there is no way "faster" rider or not, she can run even an elf horse like that without stopping to rest. Therefore, during those times, both she and the Bearer were alone and easy prey for the Riders. Shame on Aragorn for sending her into what he must have known would be that situation since he was familiar with extent - and the terrain - of what remained of the journey to the fords.

Furthermore, I carefully watched the pursuit when the Riders (who FINALLY appeared - where the heck they were during all that time remains a mystery since at least five of them were at Weathertop!). Dutifully, the Nine chased her apparently alternatively catching up and falling back depending. Interestingly enough, aside from the last mile or so, the rest of the chase scenes took place in trees and through underbrush, jumping over logs and other difficult and dangerous obstacles. NO WAY was this the "clear run to the fords" that Asfaloth made with Frodo <itb>. Again, this meant that Aragorn must surely have known that in order to reach and cross the fords, smaller, weaker Arwen would have had to perform all of those equestrian acrobatics, hunted and harassed by the Nine (with SWORDS yet!) AND burdened by the Bearer. If I had been Elrond and he had subjected MY daughter AND the Bearer to that - even if she were foolish enough to demand that he do so - I would have killed him!

I'm afraid my review of Mr. Jackson's film not only validated my previous opinions of the Arwen/Aragorn business after Weathertop, but actually revealed to me that I had been TOO KIND in my assessment! Knowing what he did of the situation, for Aragorn to have relinquished the Bearer to Arwen and left her to reach the fords alone and unaided was not only stupid, but a criminal malfeasance of his duty and obligation not only to Arwen, but to the the Quest - and I say this with the understanding that I am speaking now in the context OF THE FILM and NOT the book. :mad:

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
....something Sam says so quietly that it can easily be lost if one is not paying attention: to wit, that the fords of the Bruinen ARE SIX DAYS AWAY....
Aragorn slings Frodo onto his back and runs off through the woods with the hobbits (and their pony which he never considers using as a means of transporting the wounded hobbit!) trailing along behind. Finally, we get to the point where Frodo is "passing" into the wraith world and Aragorn begins the search for athelas (which took place <itb> the very NIGHT of the attack, not however many days later). Now by this time, we really don't know how much further it is to the fords, but one assumes that they haven't been running for five days!
At this point, Arwen appears (spectacularly stupidly, in my humble opinion)....
I say this with the understanding that I am speaking now in the context OF THE FILM and NOT the book.
Sam actually calls out, in a desperate tone of voice, that they are "six days from Rivendell". We don't itf how far it is from the Ford to R, though I suppose most would guess not far.
It would have been pretty stupid for A to delay at all in trying athelas, so that should have been early the next day, leaving the best part of the 5-6 days walk/run to the Ford - equivalent to 2-3 on horseback?
So Arwen just happens to be in the right spot, many miles from home, and then rides for 2 days- continuously?
And all she collects is that neat bit of cosmetic on the cheek, provided by the tip of a tree branch?!
Talimon has said that the Arwen thing is not one of PJ's best; the more one looks at it all, as you have done Mrs M, the worse it gets. For the book it's plain bad; for the film it's, to be kind, a mess.

[Ariana Undomiel]

I would argue that PJ's extension of certain characters and his minimizing of other's was all part of the process of having the story make sense to the viewers. In the books a lot of what goes on the story is just talked about in the dialogue rather than having the reader actually view it. That would frankly make a boring movie. It works in books and not in film. So I think it all worked out quite well if those on this forum who are Tolkien purists can get it that they really are separate. The book is Tolkien's masterpiece and can never be replaced. The movie is PJ's interpretation of the masterpiece going into film so he did what he had to do and I think it was beautiful. But neither of the two, book or film, can replace the other because they are different and beautiful in themselves.

~Ariana

[Mrs. Maggott]

It may be six days to Rivendell, but it is not that far from the fords to Imladris. That means that at the most it will probably take no more than half a day from the ford to the Last Homely House - if it takes that long (especially mounted). That means that Arwen would have been riding AT THE VERY LEAST for two days - and probably longer than that!

The problem with this sequence (and other things <itf>) may possibly be attributable to the fact that one is able to edit and put these things together so that they "look good", but frequently in the editing process, one FORGETS what has gone before. It may be that Jackson "forgot", or more likely, discounted the "six days" distance to Rivendell in the dialogue and gone on to build his "to the fords" sequence unmindful of what that particular fact meant to his depiction of the action.

Movies (unlike books and plays) are created in pieces and then assembled; they don't follow the plot line which means that things and people can appear "different" in what should be consecutive scenes when considerable time has passed between the filming of scene one and two. I remember one movie where the actor's hair became unmistakably shorter in a scene which takes place supposedly directly after the previous scene.

When one is "building" something this way, it is possible to lose track of what has gone before and that can make NONSENSE of the story - as I believe may have been the case here. :rolleyes:

[Talimon]

"The Bridge and Rivendell Reading Room" Scenes: they were okay except for the Director's change to Aragorn's character that makes him "afraid" of his heritage. <Itb>, Aragorn respects and admires Isildur although he does admit his fault in not destroying the Ring. He refers to his ancestor as "great" and if he has any question at all, it has to do with himself, NOT his heritage (when Boromir looks at him speculatively after being told of his identity, he replies that he is merely "Isildur's heir, NOT Isildur himself". <Itf>, apparently Aragorn believes that his bloodline is "tainted" by Isildur's weakness.

No use arguing over opinions, but please be honest. If you saw the films, you would be quite aware that he does not say that to Boromir at all, but to Arwen.

It would have been pretty stupid for A to delay at all in trying athelas, so that should have been early the next day, leaving the best part of the 5-6 days walk/run to the Ford - equivalent to 2-3 on horseback?


That is completely faulty. A horse goes much faster then twice the speed of walking. Indeed, a 5 day trip could be completed by a swift horse in one day easily. However, since it would be amatuerish film-making to actually draw that scene out and show it was a whole day, PJ does the sensible thing and speeds up the time.

At this point, Arwen appears (spectacularly stupidly, in my humble opinion) and "calls" to Frodo in hopes of preventing him from slipping further under the spell of his wound. I had no problem with this interpretation although I would have liked Aragorn's healing propensities ALSO brought out since THE HANDS OF THE KING ARE THE HANDS OF A HEALER and is one of the talismans by which he is recognized eventually in Gondor as the true King.

Aragorn admits even itb that the wound is beyond his skill to heal (or something to that effect).


If I had been Elrond and he had subjected MY daughter AND the Bearer to that - even if she were foolish enough to demand that he do so - I would have killed him!

You neglect the fact that Elrond allowed her to go search for them in the first place (itf). As such, itf, it is assumed Elrond has enough trust in his daughter, or perhaps his daughters will is beyond his command. Indeed, this mirrors the book, to the extent that he couldn't convince her to leave Middle-earth. Even itb she was strong-willed. So I don't think it's accurate to say she's "completely out of charachter" from the book. But that's irrelevant, since we are judging the film on it's own terms.

[Ancalagon]

Any of you lot ever think to come into the Books section of the forum and discuss the myriad of questions relating to the Authors own work before this lame attempt at interpretation was considered?

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Ancalagon
Any of you lot ever think to come into the Books section of the forum and discuss the myriad of questions relating to the Authors own work before this lame attempt at interpretation was considered?

I'm not making any attempt in interpretation, indeed I'm arguing the exact opposite. That is, that the movie should be judged on it's own terms.

[Mrs. Maggott]

"The movie is PJ's interpretation of the masterpiece going into film so he did what he had to do..." <quote>

What did he "have" to do? What forced him to change the focus of the film from the hobbits (as it was <itb>) to his two separate "pairs", Gandalf/Saruman and Arwen/Aragorn? Gandalf, of course, was ALWAYS a pivotal character, being the "mover and shaker" of events. But Aragorn - main figure that he is from the race of men even <itb> - is not nearly as central in the author's plot as were ALL FOUR HOBBITS. And if Aragorn was a lesser character, Arwen wasn't there at all but for two or three references and a story in the appendix.

For whatever reason, Mr. Jackson decided that his two "pairs" made a better story than Tolkien's original. That is why he had no trouble leaving out the development of the relationships among the hobbits and virtually everything that happened to them from the time Frodo and Sam left the Bag End (with the exception of the cinematically impressive ferry scene) to their arrival at the Prancing Pony together with the hobbits' story's climax, the Scouring of the Shire. Since the hobbits are no longer the main characters (even though Frodo remains Ring Bearer), their trials and successes are of less interest than are Arwen's and Saruman's enlarged rolls.

This was Mr. Jackson's movie and he had (I guess) every right to do what he saw fit to do. But many (most?) of the things that he did were NOT the result of what he "had", but of what he "wanted" to do. :rolleyes:

[Mrs. Maggott]

"Any of you lot ever think to come into the Books section of the forum and discuss the myriad of questions relating to the Authors own work before this lame attempt at interpretation was considered?" <quote>

Why? Most of what is being discussed is Arwen's role in the film. The book is referenced only for the sake of trying to discern where Jackson is going with the character in relationship to where Tolkien went.

I have no problem speaking about the book (although I'd like to FIND my books for reference sake before I begin to do any serious, in-depth interpretation). :confused: Where ARE the damned things!??!

[Mrs. Maggott]

"No use arguing over opinions, but please be honest. If you saw the films, you would be quite aware that he does not say that to Boromir at all, but to Arwen." <quote>

It is not Aragorn who tells Arwen that he is Isildur's heir, not Isildur himself (which is what he tells Boromir <itb>), but rather, it is ARWEN who tells Aragorn that he is NOT Isildur. She does this in an attempt to relieve him of the burden of the fear he feels regarding his heritage. He, however, answers her that the same blood runs in his veins as in Isildur's - and, hence, one suspects, he believes that he, too, is capable of such weakness.

[Thorin]

I always knew that the Arwen part was ludicrous and unjustifiable before. But Mrs. Maggot seems to have made it as obvious as the nose on your face that judging by both the film on its own merits and to the book, the whole Arwen fiasco was a stupid and bothersome change.

I don't know how one can continue justifying the nonsense, but yet, Talimon seems to be diving in deep like the illogical FADs before him (markrob, Harad, Foe-Hammer).

You can justify until the cows come home, but Maggot has shown the facts for what they are: Jackson chose to ignore Tolkien's important characters and plot to add his own "flourishing touches" in the name of "director's interpretation", and has fallen woefully short in presenting a great story in the manner it should have, and could have been presented. Plain and simple...No "spirit of Tolkien", no "ancestry of Luthien" nonsense. It was a gratuituous change made by the director who wants to play God with Tolkien's genius. PJ ignored Tolkien in these and many other regards and his movie has suffered from it (IMO of course)

[lilhobo]

shhhh , he s forgotten the Luthien line of arguements :D

i think it s a defensible from that point ;)

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
That is completely faulty. A horse goes much faster then twice the speed of walking. Indeed, a 5 day trip could be completed by a swift horse in one day easily. However, since it would be amatuerish film-making to actually draw that scene out and show it was a whole day, PJ does the sensible thing and speeds up the time.

It's not "completely" faulty. I very carefully put a question mark after the estimate of 2-3 days. Your "one day easily" is almost as much of a guess-timate as mine, but I did make it clear mine WAS a guess-timate.
How could anyone draw out a scene and show it was a whole day? - make the film 24 hours long? "Speeding up the time" is the ONLY thing he could do, not a specifically "sensible" thing.
The book has the athelas treatment at Weathertop, followed by a walk of more than a week to the trolls' clearing, and another day and night with Glorfindel before the attack and the "long straight mile" ride to the Ford.
PJ gives Sam the "6-day" call, and places the ride the next day. If he ""forgot", or more likely, discounted the "six days" distance to Rivendell in the dialogue and gone on to build his "to the fords" sequence unmindful of what that particular fact meant to his depiction of the action."- <quote Mrs M>, that doesn't say much for his skill. It looks as if, as someone else said in another context, he "painted himself into a corner" about this one.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
It may be six days to Rivendell, but it is not that far from the fords to Imladris.
That means that at the most it will probably take no more than half a day from the ford to the Last Homely House - if it takes that long (especially mounted). That means that Arwen would have been riding AT THE VERY LEAST for two days - and probably longer than that!

We agree- as I said "most would guess it was not too far" from the Ford to Rivendell, which IS Imladris. Less than half a day IS a good guess.
I guessed 2-3 days, and added a question mark, for Arwen's ride, but Talimon is sure it could be done in one day. I may not be as sure as you Mrs M, but I do think our guesses are better than his!

[lilhobo]

the "virtual" timeframe is actually insignificant in the film medium, coz of "real" timeframe constraints. you cant blame PJ for compressing the time sequences.

However, there are other means to illustrate the passing of time. bakshi had the idea to flash some seasons to illustrate the passage of time. It actually worked for that particular scene.

[joxy]

Originally posted by lilhobo
the "virtual" timeframe is actually insignificant in the film medium, coz of "real" timeframe constraints. you cant blame PJ for compressing the time sequences.
However, there are other means to illustrate the passing of time. bakshi had the idea to flash some seasons to illustrate the passage of time. It actually worked for that particular scene.
Not sure what you're saying here. We're saying he's inconsistent with himself over the time: Sam says Rivendell is 6 days away, the next day Arwen makes it in - what? - a few minutes? - a few hours? - certainly less than a whole day.
Bakshi used the flashing seasons to show the 17 years between Bilbo leaving and Frodo leaving the Shire, and yes, it did work.

[Talimon]

PJ gives Sam the "6-day" call, and places the ride the next day. If he ""forgot", or more likely, discounted the "six days" distance to Rivendell in the dialogue and gone on to build his "to the fords" sequence unmindful of what that particular fact meant to his depiction of the action."- <quote Mrs M>, that doesn't say much for his skill. It looks as if, as someone else said in another context, he "painted himself into a corner" about this one.

What's the problem here? Sam, at night, says they are six days from Rivendell. During the same night, Arwen shows up, and leaves with Frodo (at night). The next shot shows her during bright daylight, thus leaving us to assume that at least a few hours have passed. The next few shots show her covering great distances, which is what I mean by PJ "compressing" distance. The way PJ shows it Arwen covered the "6-day" distance in a day of horse-riding. To me this is logical, considering she left during the night-time and had a head start.

Jackson chose to ignore Tolkien's important characters and plot to add his own "flourishing touches" in the name of "director's interpretation", and has fallen woefully short in presenting a great story in the manner it should have, and could have been presented. Plain and simple...No "spirit of Tolkien", no "ancestry of Luthien" nonsense.

Nothing here is plain and simple :). You are arguing that the change PJ made went head-and-shoulders against Tolkien. While I have never claimed it was 100% Tolkien (how could it be?), I maintain it was in the right direction. Moreover, I think it added (and as the trilogy progresses will add, by the it's mere existence) to the tale of LotR as a whole, cinematically speaking. Not as a book, but as a movie. There is nothing to "prove" here.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Still, there can be no doubt that NO ONE could ride a horse "flat out" like that for too long. She leaves at night and next we see her in broad daylight riding very hard indeed. There is then another change in the surrounding scenery (which must mean that more distance has been covered) and she is still riding hard, now joined by the pursuing Riders. It is still broad daylight, but we do not know if it is the same day which seems unlikely since the scenery has changed so drastically but the time of day seems to be the same or at least not too much later (if at all).

There is simply NO WAY she could have ridden a horse that hard that long and that far without the animal collapsing, elven horse or not. And since she cannot slow down once the Riders are at hand, that means that at some time between her leaving with Frodo and crossing the fords, SHE HAD TO STOP AND REST and when she did that, she was EXTREMELY vulnerable to attack. I cannot imagine how another interpretation of the events as they are presented can be made!

And as for Elrond having no "say" about the lady's activities: if that is the case - and I do not deny it - then he can have no recriminations to make against Aragorn whether he leaves Arwen and takes the Ringbearer himself or he permits her to take Frodo herself. One cannot make the argument that he would have been open to extreme criticism from Elrond for leaving her behind and then say that Elrond would have no right to criticize him for allowing her to go into danger because the choice was hers! Either her father had a right to criticize Aragorn for his actions under the circumstances, or he has NO right to do so. The right cannot be dependent upon the man's decision if it is the LADY who put him in the unenviable position to make that decision in the first place! If Arwen is solely responsible for her actions, then she is also solely responsible for the consequences stemming therefrom. Otherwise, for poor Aragorn it's a lose/lose situation, damned if you do and damned if you don't! :(

[Talimon]

There is simply NO WAY she could have ridden a horse that hard that long and that far without the animal collapsing, elven horse or not. And since she cannot slow down once the Riders are at hand, that means that at some time between her leaving with Frodo and crossing the fords, SHE HAD TO STOP AND REST and when she did that, she was EXTREMELY vulnerable to attack. I cannot imagine how another interpretation of the events as they are presented can be made!

Now we are entering the realm of logic, which is the last place we want to go when talking about myth. This arguement is akin to saying it wasn't possible for Aragorn/Gimili/Legolas/Rangers to cross the paths of the dead and reach Minas Tirith in time. Perhaps not, but a lot of things in LotR are not "logical". That's why this story is worth telling, because so many extraordinary events take place. While I am no equestrian, I am fairly certain that the distance covered by 4 walking, tired hobbits in 6 days (hobbits with short legs, mind you ;)) could be matched by a single, fresh, and fully galloping horse in one day or less. An elven horse, at that. Ridden by a light rider, as well. And even if all these factors still don't make the ride "logical", then Arwen's race to the Ford is yet one more of the "legendary" fables of the War of the Ring.

One cannot make the argument that he would have been open to extreme criticism from Elrond for leaving her behind and then say that Elrond would have no right to criticize him for allowing her to go into danger because the choice was hers!

We don't know whether Elrond would criticize Aragorn had he left Arwen behind. It can be assumed, seeing that he didn't criticize him for letting her ride, however, that he wouldn't criticize him for leaving her with the hobbits. In either case, Elrond from our knowledge either trusts in his daughter, doesn't care, or can't control her will. Personally I believe that as the trilogy progresses we will find out that it is indeed the last.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Last first: it was not I who introduced what might have been said by Elrond to Aragorn to point out why he couldn't leave Arwen behind in danger with the hobbits as a reason for Aragorn not doing so. I, perforce, am only pointing out that if that is going to be a criteria in the argument as to why he should NOT have left her behind, then one has to broach all the rest of the questions that I have put forth. In the end, one is left with the fact that Elrond's reaction to whatever Aragorn or Arwen, for that matter, chose to do, cannot be a consideration in the matter.

And then: if we are going to say that we must abandon reality in order to accept Arwen's flight to the fords because the story is MYTH, then we are establishing a criteria which does not bode well for any truly serious critique of the film(s). That same argument then can be made to support whatever side a person chooses to defend within a give situation and reduces all carefully considered objective criticism to nonsense. I do not necessarily disagree with your contention, but once accepted, it runs both ways in all situations. :rolleyes:

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
In the end, one is left with the fact that Elrond's reaction to whatever Aragorn or Arwen, for that matter, chose to do, cannot be a consideration in the matter.

In which case your arguement that Elrond would never allow his daughter to wed a man who sent her into danger is somewhat obsolete. I agree, however, that Elrond really isn't a main charachter here (yet). In the EE (extended edition) we will perhaps see something regarding Elronds feelings towards Aragorn (they have a scene together). But as it is I think the main charachters here are Aragorn/Arwen.

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott

And then: if we are going to say that we must abandon reality in order to accept Arwen's flight to the fords because the story is MYTH, then we are establishing a criteria which does not bode well for any truly serious critique of the film(s). That same argument then can be made to support whatever side a person chooses to defend within a give situation and reduces all carefully considered objective criticism to nonsense.

Not so. I am not saying that Arwens flight to the ford is in itself myth (as opposed to the rest of tale). I think the tale as a whole is myth, which is made evident just by the way it's told. As such I don't believe logic, in terms of a charachters accomplishments, is reasonable criteria to criticize a scene. You can perhaps argue it's out of charachter for Arwen, cheapens her, etc. etc... But with all the events that take place in LotR (book and movie), logic, unless pushed to the utmost extreme (which Tolkien and PJ do on several occasions), isn't enough to deem a scene bad. Especially in this case, where so many factors are unknown.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Whoa! I am willing to concede that if the film represents myth, then just about "anything goes", so to speak. Arwen is able to reach the ford in one day's ride no matter how far away it may be.

HOWEVER, that means that EVERYTHING is equally "up for grabs" and therefore, the only critique that can be made is whether or not the individual viewer finds the scene good or bad according to his or her taste. Everthing is reduced to the subjective and nothing any longer is within the realm of the objective. But then you cannot "disagree" with the subjective judgment of the viewer and you cannot have part of the film defensible on the grounds that it is "believable" while that which is not "believable" is defensible on the grounds that it is "myth".

In the case of the "myth" factor, it is all or nothing.

[Ariana Undomiel]

Arwen is able to reach the ford in one day's ride no matter how far away it may be.

Who says that she reached the ford in one days ride? When she left Aragorn it was still the middle of the night. And when she reaches the ford it's late afternoon if I judge correctly from the lighting. Who knows how much time had past? Sam said it was a six days journey to Rivendell but he was speaking about time on foot. At full gallop on an Elvin horse? Who knows? I think we are just quick to judge the lapse of time by what we see and we don't take into consideration that we aren't shown all the time that passes.

Also, everything is not subjective just because certain parts are. Arwen is an elf and her horse is definatley more than just the ordinary equine animal. Therefore, she has the ability to exceed the possibilities within reality. When it comes to scenes with the hobbits and men, we should expect more closeness to a certain reality because neither men nor hobbits nor dwarves have any magical abilities. However, what is the reality? The reality is whatever Tolkien wrote in his book.

~Ariana

[Talimon]

In the case of the "myth" factor, it is all or nothing.

I can't agree with that. In that case, why couldn't Frodo single-handedly defeat all 9 Nazgul in hand-to-hand combat, or Arwen cast magic fireballs? :)

Everything we argue here is basically subjective. That is a given, I think, when discussing art in general. What we were discussing a moment earlier, however, was whether PJ was contradicting himself. In terms of Arwen logically reaching the Ford in time I don't think he is.

[Mrs. Maggott]

You have misunderstood my meaning when I say that with the "myth factor" it is all or nothing. I am speaking here of using the excuse/reason/ defense of the myth factor in CRITICISM of the film, NOT the Director using the myth factor in MAKING the film.

If you are going to say that something which has been criticized for being "unbelievable" - such as Arwen being able to make the fords in one day on horseback - is acceptable because of the "myth factor", then you cannot turn around and defend something that the Director has done by saying that it is essentially "believable" and therefore acceptable. Either the entire film is subject to judgment on its "believability" and one may logically call into question just how Arwen could have arrived at the fords in one day, or the events within the entire film must be interpreted through the "myth factor" and no objective criticism obtains.

The point I made here is that the "myth factor" cannot be applied selectively to those parts of the film where the Director has failed to create a believable scenario while the rest of the film is defended as being perfectly rational. It is, as I said, "all or nothing" with this particular defense. :)

[Parrot]

posted by Mrs. Maggott
I cannot imagine how another interpretation of the events as they are presented can be made!

As is often the case when incomplete facts are presented, no offense. I’m not sure what the deal is between Frodo getting stabbed and Arwen arriving on the scene, whether or not it is intended to be the same night. My gut feeling, because of Sam’s “six days” quote, is that this was not the original intent but that interim travel scenes may have been edited out, possibly at the directive of New Line (“let’s just get to Liv!”) and at the expense of clarity. However, further examination reveals a far more telling quote than Sam’s regarding the time and distances involved:
Arwen-
I've been looking for you for two days. There are five wraiths behind you. Where the other four are I do not know.
So what does this quote tell us? She has come from Rivendell and has actually gone far enough to know what is occurring behind them, so she must now be backtracking; all in the space of two days. Therefore, by definition, they are less than two days ride from Rivendell and at a presumably much slower “searching” pace than the break-neck flight to the ford. The ford lies somewhere between them and Rivendell but we can’t really say where with any certainty. It must be a fair distance (the ½ day maybe?) or the idea of it providing protection would not really be relevant. So shave that distance and factor in the increased speed and I don’t see it as stretching credibility having the flight span just a few hours (changes in scenery notwithstanding). Now, none of this is really here nor there and does not settle the issue by any means, but, I believe it does get us around the idea that she would have to stop and rest and be vulnerable to attack. It also lends credence to speed over battle again I would say. It also points out (again) that the only known danger is behind them and the whereabouts of the others is unknown, so Aragorn, is, in fact, sending her (and the ring btw) away from the riders he knows of. Your whole indictment of Aragorn’s decision making (and his very manhood apparently) is predicated on the idea that he is knowingly sending her into danger, when this is not the case at all.

One other thing that jumps out from your evaluation is the studious avoidance of any mention of the flood and the protection that is available to Arwen and Arwen alone upon crossing the river, and this may be the most relevant point of all. The passing of the ring is paramount here; not the protection of Arwen or the survival of Frodo; and if that fails nothing else matters. If Aragorn honestly sees Arwen as his best bet to get the ring to safety, a reasonable conclusion IMO, then to have allowed his own selfish motives or supposed chivalry to change this decision would have been far more damaging to his character, in my opinion. Eyes on the prize!

Having said all that, I fully understand how you have concluded that Aragorn made a poor choice and would say you have made a strong case for it. What I reject is the idea that the facts don’t allow for any other interpretation and your crusade to make your impression universal; and, more pointedly, that this somehow, when combined with the other scenes you mention, turns Aragorn in to some quiche-eating, tassel-loafer-wearing, Nancy-boy. Yes, in laying the groundwork for some future character development, PJ has introduced some new (“invented, fallacious, dubious, bothersome, gratuitous, stupid, ludicrous, ridiculous, nonsensical, indefensible, unjustifiable, EMASCULATING?”) doubts in Aragorn’s psyche and has shown Arwen trying to help him overcome these doubts. I just don’t grasp how these changes really damage the essence of the character. Are you saying the great heroes and leaders, whether in history or literature, have had no doubts? Yes, it is a departure from Tolkien proper, no argument, (helmet buckled, prepared for stoning) but it is a change I like and I am looking forward to seeing play out to his becoming the King in full.

wow, sorry for the long-winded post

[Mrs. Maggott]

Oh, well, here we go again: she says she has been searching for two days - but that does NOT mean that it has been two days since the battle at Weathertop, only that she has been looking for them for two days. Furthermore, we don't really know where she came FROM; it could have been anywhere! For all we know, they are still several days from the fords. But, frankly, the timing here is very confusing and each one who says something regarding where they are and how far there is left to go merely muddies the waters further.

However, the first scene in which she shown is riding (and riding hard) for the fords shows one type of scenery and the second scene shows an entirely different type of scenery which just might indicate a change of locale. As she continues to ride at the same break-neck pace and arrives at the fords at approximately the same time of day as the previous scene (which shows that altogether different scenery), I must make the assumption that at least one day has passed. Perhaps her horse is able to run, untiring for two days, I don't know. If he is, fine. If he isn't, she stopped and rested somewhere. If she did, she was alone, burdened by a wounded Frodo and in grave danger.

Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that only HER presence at the fords would initiate the flood which carries away the Riders. <Itb>, it is said that Elrond has the power to forbid entrance into Rivendell of anyone whom he deems should not be there and that the waters of the Bruinen are the means whereby he denies access to the unfit. Arwen indicates that it is her "people" who would be able to stop the Riders, not she, herself (although the scene at the fords rather confounds that statement). Therefore, if Aragorn took the Bearer, the same thing would have happened once he crossed the fords.

As for the possibility of combat with the Riders or at least of them being close enough to personally interfere with the fleeing horse/rider/bearer, I'm sorry. There was simply no way of knowing where ALL the Riders were once the battle at Weathertop took place. That meant that there is no way anyone could declare without doubt that there might not be some sort of conflict. In fact, Arwen WAS almost intercepted; the Riders came VERY close to grabbing for Frodo (I remember the scene well). Under those circumstances, surely Aragorn was the better candidate to bring the Bearer safely across the river.

As for Jackson's treatment of the characters of Aragorn and Arwen: I'm sorry. He weakened Aragorn (perhaps in order to strengthen Arwen) and strengthened Arwen. He made Aragorn hesitant, unsure and afraid of his birthright; his own blood caused him considerable angst. By that, I don't mean that he was a coward, but he certainly did nothing to assure us that he was a king, even hidden. Indeed, Jackson underscores this interpretation by having Elrond declare to Gandalf that Aragorn could not be considered a candidate to lead men in Middle Earth because he had "chosen exile", which, of course, was NOT the original character of Aragorn <itb>. Now, having said that, I understand and accept that <itf>, it is JACKSON's interpretation of the character...but there can be no doubt that Jackson diminished the character whether or not you "enjoy" the resultant character development flowing therefrom.

[Parrot]

As I don't feel you hurt my argument, that there is more than one reasonable interpretation, much, I will keep this short.

Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that only HER presence at the fords would initiate the flood which carries away the Riders. <Itb>, it is said that Elrond has the power to forbid entrance into Rivendell of anyone whom he deems should not be there and that the waters of the Bruinen are the means whereby he denies access to the unfit. Arwen indicates that it is her "people" who would be able to stop the Riders, not she, herself (although the scene at the fords rather confounds that statement). Therefore, if Aragorn took the Bearer, the same thing would have happened once he crossed the fords.

Nothing from the film supports your position here. As a matter of fact Arwen has to take the highly unusual (and much debated in its own right) step of saying some incantation to trigger the flood. Elrond's power, true dat, but password protected apparently.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Then why didn't she just say, "And you know, once I have crossed the river, I can protect myself and the Bearer". She didn't, you know. She distinctly said "my people". Again, I admit certainly that it looked as if it was her incantation that called down the flood, but <itf> she does not refer to herself as being the one who will do so.

Furthermore, as another failure of internal consistency, the film has her standing IN THE WATER when the flood comes, not up upon a bank which would protect her from the flood. Don't you think it was a bit, well, shall we say "short sighted" to call down a flood before you get yourself OUT OF THE RIVER?? That makes sense if someone else is creating the flood since you would have no control over it, but if in fact Arwen brings the flood, why on earth does she stand around hock deep in the river watching the oncoming deluge? :confused: :rolleyes:

[Parrot]

Well, if she doesn't call the flood, as would seem to be the case, we have the greatest internal failing of all; Why did she even stop? :confused:

[Mrs. Maggott]

Why not? She has already told him that once she crosses the river, "my people" will protect her and Frodo. Therefore, whether she calls the flood or someone else does, she must be expecting it or some other protection which will protect her once she crosses the fords.

However, you are right to question why she took the chance and taunted the Riders, egging them on to follow - unless, of course, she was expecting a flood and wished to lure them into the river.

If, however, she was expecting a flood (which seems logical since she was watching the water level), again I have to ask, why doesn't she get out of the river? Remember, <itb>, Gandalf apparently was concerned that the flood that was released was SO great that EVERYONE was going to be washed away - including Frodo. Of course, at the time, the HORSE had the sense to bring Frodo up on the bank and away from the river to protect him from the flood.

Maybe the next time, Jackson should just send the horse. :rolleyes:

[Talimon]

You aren't making sense :). If she was IN the river she would have been swept off with it, wouldn't she now? She challenges them (falsely) while she is on the opposite banks. As the river nears you can see her back up. I don't see what you're getting at. If she was IN the river she would have been swept off with it. :confused:


Oh, well, here we go again: she says she has been searching for two days - but that does NOT mean that it has been two days since the battle at Weathertop, only that she has been looking for them for two days.

Parrot never claimed that. What he was pointing out was that the distance from Rivendell to where they were was much less then 2 days, indeed at a "searching pace" probably less then a day. If she has been looking for them for 2 days, then the distance to Rivendell must be at the absolute most 2 days. This however would be faulty, because it would be assuming she darted striaght from Rivendell to thier pin-point location. Since she searched for them, and even knew how many riders were behind them, that leads one to believe the trip could take less then half a day easily. And I believe that half a day of fast horse-riding allows one to go through quite different terrain. You can go ahead and "interpret" it took her a few days; but that's only one interpretation, and in my opinion one with little basis at that. Considering the context of the scene, the more obvious interpretation is to PJ's benefit.

Don't get me wrong, I have problems with Arwen. The logistics of her race to the Ford isn't one of them ;).

[Mrs. Maggott]

A good horse at top speed does about 35 miles an hour. But most horses can't run at top speed for an hour much less several hours. Most riders who wish to go long distances rapidly will gallop the horse at well under his "flat out" speed and then perhaps walk him for several miles, alternating this mode of travel in order to go the farthest distance in the fastest time. But that brings one's speed considerably under 35 mph.

If Rivendell was "6 days away" at the time of the attack, then how far could Aragorn (carrying Frodo) have come with the hobbits on foot behind him before he met up with Arwen? I can't imagine that it was more than one day. Seeing how desperately ill the hobbit was becoming, Aragorn would have (in fact, DID) stop to find something (athelas) to treat the wound so that Frodo would not slip into the wraith world before help could be found. That still leaves 5 days to Rivendell when she finds them (I will be even willing to lower that estimate to 4, although it would be a BIG stretch). Taking off 1 day (and that's giving more time than should be necessary) from the fords to the house, that still leaves 3 to 4 days to the fords. I still say that there would have had to be at least a FEW HOURS and probably more, during which Arwen with Frodo would have had to rest the horse on the journey to the fords - and when that happened - well, you know. :rolleyes:

As for Arwen in the river: I did not see her "back up" except to go a few feet closer to the bank. I certainly did not see her RIDE UP ONTO the bank. If she did, fine, but I don't remember seeing it. Still, if she did call down the flood, why stop to do so while you're still in the river? And if she wished to taunt the Riders into going far enough into the water to be carrier away when the flood came, why could she not have done so FROM THE BANK? Surely the fact that she was no longer in the river would not have prevented the Riders from continuing their persuit. :confused:

[Parrot]

Oh, I have problems with Arwen too, like all the clothes she wears all the time. I mean if Elrond can make floods couldn’t he whip up a hot-tub in pretty short order and get us some gratuitous bikini shots and couldn’t PJ have fabricated (I forgot the classic “fabricated”!) a bit part for Alicia Silverstone as Arwen’s hot friend or handmaiden or something, is that really so much to ask? and maybe we could work Milla Jovovich or Lucy Liu or maybe in there and go for the hat trick and they could be like Elrond’s Angels and all like posing with cool swords and stuff and they could gallop around Rivendell scantily clad on their thundering steeds and uuuhhh……….. oops, sorry, wandered off there, heh, heh……

Whoa, I wish TTT would hurry up and get here so we can have some fresh, completely pointless, drivel to argue over like the fate of the world hangs in the balance.

[Mrs. Maggott]

To be quite candid, I ENJOYED the enlarged version of Aragorn (which Arwen's increased role made necessary) because he is my favorite character in the book and Tolkien made him so, well, indestructable; so untouchable; so academic; so damned British! It was great seeing him get banged around and appear to be actually in danger from time to time. I realize that Tolkien's version was more "mythopoeic", but frankly, I prefer my melodrama DRAMATIC!

And I had no problem with the love scenes. Again in the book, it was all so "academic" that although one knew about the eventual consummation of their love, it sort of reminded me of that play, "No Sex, Please! We're British!" I enjoy all of this in the movie, but I do wish he (Jackson) had spent just a little time making the audience aware that the hobbits acted out of love and loyalty rather than just being in the wrong place at the wrong time!

I frankly see no reason why you can't have a little fun along in a momentous epic, but a film like this walks a fine line between great entertainment and a sort of big screen video game where one can spend all one's time toting up the ever increasing body count!

[Eowyn14]

First of all, to all involved in the discussion back when it was hot and heavy: Well done! Wish I would have been a member at that time in order to have participated. But now that I am, I think I'll throw my two cents in.

Oh! For the record, I am in agreement (for the most part) with the points raised by Mrs. Maggot, but not always for her same reasoning.

Also, in my arguments I will try to stick to the movie and NOT the books except when the instance arises when I need to address them.

(If you don't want to rehash or reargue old points, then new points to debate are below in blue.)


Okay...

Regarding the whole "race to the ford thing" (ie. how many days it took / where Arwen was coming from / who was the faster rider / elven equine / change of scenery / it got lighter outside):
Not ENOUGH is made clear in the movie as to time frame to make a clear determination in my mind... so I'm going to stay away from it. ((Note: OMG, you guys spent forever on that issue.)) ;)

Regarding Ariana's statement something to the effect of Arwen being an elf and her horse being elvish and so the realm of reality can easily be altered:
In what universe? She doesn't live in another dimension where she can warp time and get to Rivendell before the Nazgul. She is a creature of ME subject to the same laws of physics as the rest. Also, there is no indication that the horse in the movie (not the book!) has any "special skills". To the movie viewer he's just a regular old horse.

Regarding the "increase" of the "sub-plots" of Saruman and Arwen:
Necessary in my opinion. These two characters are important and pivotal in how their existance (their relations with others and their actions) effects the ENTIRE storyline. The Old Forest, Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, and the Barrowdowns are not significant overall characters to the driving force of the story; therefore, cut them (even as being a "bookfan" I would have thought it cool to have seen them).
If PJ doesn't tell Saruman and Arwen's stories through the means of scenes in the movie, how will the viewer be made known of their importance (assuming, of course, that they know nothing about the books and only have the movie as their source for information)?

Regarding the SotS as the climax:
I don't think it is. I didn't feel this way even in reading the books.
IMO, everything after the battles, Mt. Doom, and the coronation / wedding was "wrap up". I think you may concede that the story has a natural climax to it which is the destruction of the ring and the removal of the immediate threat of Sauron getting ahold of it and taking over ME. After that, it is literally and figuratively "clean up".
Yes the Hobbits still have to find out what has happened to their beloved home, .. but.... is there REALLY any overwhelming, edge of doom type of threat to them after the ring is destroyed? No. And the Hobbits don't think so either! Look at the way they perceived the "sheriffs" upon return to the Shire. "What??? Are you kidding me? We have just faced the lidless eye, the all consuming evil power of the one ring, orc kidnapping, the Witch King, a crazy old man ready to light himself and his son on fire, talking/walking/killer trees, giant smelly spiders, the coronation and wedding and return to the throne of the man who rules our land (did we mention he's a personal friend of ours?), and you are telling me 'I can't cross the bridge after night fall?' Get the hell out of my way!" ((Not actual quotes,.. don't post me and say so.)) ;)
So therefore the anticipation and fear that has been building for three books (and will for three movies) has been relieved by the destruction of the ring. The movies, I believe, will reflect this natural climax by making the SotS very minimal, filler between the coronation and Frodo's departure. I, for one (and I think I am in the minority on this), hope the movie does NOT make too much of the SotS, though I DO hope that it will be made known.

Regarding the emasculating treatment of Aragorn's character:
I must say that I agree with Mrs. Maggot's persception of this. IMO, Aragorn is a quiet man, but silence and uncertainty are NOT the same thing. Arwen's "ego stroking" of Aragorn in Rivendell leads the careful nuaces of their relationship into something that I don't think it ever was. Aaand ::bracing for the backlash::, sorry, but Aragorn would NEVER have let Arwen take Frodo the rest of the way to the ford (her arguments or no).
::Quickly moving on::
But ::sigh, shaking head:: since we (the audience) have already been exposed to this now, let me ask you something: How can Aragorn NOT seem like a hypocrit when he later will tell Eowyn that she can't ride with him in battle to face peril? He let ARWEN do it! The love of his life! Who he has to prove himself worthy of before he can have her!!
As the scoreboard stands now, Arwen is leading in the "worthiness" points. Aragorn is going to be a hypocrit on top of it all now?? That's not strength of character and resolve,.. that's weakness!
::Grumble:: Maybe they are leaving room for his character to grow and "become" more "kingly", but one of the reason that men, elves, dwarves, and hobbits pledge themselves to this man with little more proof, reassurance, or guaranteed safety than 'just being asked to do so' is a mark of what a charismatic, intelligent, strong, loyal, self assured, leader of a person that he is. Movie Aragorn had some moments that were really really nice, ... but too many moments when, as a viewer, I doubted him and his ability to know what was best, to know what he wanted, and to know how to accomplish things once a decision was made. Knowing how the book Aragorn is portrayed makes me want the movie Aragorn to reflect these same qualities. IMO, movie Aragorn, disappointedly, isn't coming across with these leadership qualities in the same way. I think that a lot of the fault of that has to do with how the writer's have altered Arwen's character.

If you would like to reply to my above opinions, I would be happy to pick this debate back up. But here is a new question to review the aspect of how Arwen's change will effect things:

How do you think the empowerment of the movie Arwen (defying her father, facing the Nazgul, wielding her sword) will effect the impact of the character of Eowyn (who is much praised for her character's drive to fight) when later she will be doing these same things? Will the surprise of a "lady warrior" be less because the audience has already seen it through Arwen?

[Mrs. Maggott]

The Scouring of the Shire is the "climax" of the story not from the matter of importance, but because Tolkien has told his tale THROUGH and FROM the viewpoint of the hobbits and no one else. Therefore, even though "all's right with the world" elsewhere, when the four hobbits leave Gandalf and return to the Shire, it is up to them to put it to rights and, correctly, the LAST BATTLE of the War of the Ring takes place outside the front door of Bag End - where it might be said, the whole thing started.

However, the story in the film is NOT told from the viewpoint of the hobbits and therefore SoS is truly anti-claimactic.

[Eowyn14]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
...Tolkien has told his tale THROUGH and FROM the viewpoint of the hobbits and no one else.
Yes, the story mainly followed the travels of the hobbits through the WOTR, but I disagree that it was only ever told THROUGH and FROM the viewpoints of the Hobbits. The Prologue begins by saying that "This book is largely concerned with Hobbits,...". It didn't say it was all inclusively concerned with them. If it ONLY ever showed things from the viewpoints of the Hobbits then Tolkien wouldn't have included portions of the Appendix nor, it could be argued, would he have bothered with the depths to which he gave so many of the non-Hobbit characters or the chapters involved in telling their sides of the story.
... it is up to them to put it to rights and, correctly, the LAST BATTLE of the War of the Ring takes place outside the front door of Bag End... Yes, technically. Arguably though, the battle itself was relatively small and the overall dangers were not "desperate" even though the battle was very important. The act of the hobbits having to resort to a battle was, I believe, mostly so Tolkien could wrap up Saruman and Wormtongue's story. The Hobbits are the glue and the through-thread that the story follows - but the story is not solely about them.
However, the story in the film is NOT told from the viewpoint of the hobbits and therefore SoS is truly anti-claimactic.
Agreed on both points. Again, however, I'm not sure that you can convincingly argue that the story in the book WAS only from the viewpoint of the Hobbits.
;) I have a feeling we won't see the same on this no matter how much or well we both debate the two sides. I'm pretty much decided in regards to my impression of the story (book and movie) and I get the feeling, by your posting, that you are equally as convinced in your impressions.
Thanks for replying! I love to hear other views.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Certainly, the hobbits weren't the ONLY people whose viewpoint was expressed. But the fact is that the hobbits were the MAIN protagonists of the tale. This is noted mainly in the fact that Tolkien permits all FOUR hobbits to go on the quest when, in fact, it would have made infinitely better marshal sense to have two elf warriors go with the other seven. But Tolkien WANTED the hobbits because they become the catalyst through which things happen in the story. Gandalf says as much when he notes that it is Pippin's and Merry's arrival in Fangorn that arouses the Ents. It is Merry's blow which deflects the Witch King's blade and allows Eowyn to destroy him and so forth.

Yes, there are other points of view in the story - including some from the "other side", but it is the HOBBITS who are the criteria from whom and by which the tale evolves and it is the hobbits, alas, that Mr. Jackson primarily fails in his version of the story.

[Parrot]

Eowyn14, lest you start to feel rejected by the defenders, I would just like to say Welcome to the Forum and thanks for your contribution. However, I think that any response I might make to your questions would be just a regurgitation of points already discussed here ad nauseam.

In regards to the decisions made by movie Aragorn, I would leave you with a quote from book Gandalf explaining his decision to take the fellowship through Moria;
“However it may prove, one must tread the path that need chooses!”

See you around. :)