Arwen is going to kill the FOTR...

[Gloer]

By now everyone must think I am a sort of a pro-movie guy which is not quite true. I have developed to a stage where I am sure I will enjoy the movie. I will like it in it's imperfectness. At least a lot of people I know that haven't read the book get some idea what it is like (you hate me for saying this) even if there are P.J.'s own perversions in it. I think the overall atmosphere will be right and a lot of people will start to think of LOTR as something more than just a childrens fantasy book. So I am defending this film somewhat.

But.

I saw the trailer on Newsweek.com.
The music will be grand... It rolls on.
Everything is good. Very, very good. I got really exited, even when I tried to be critical and calm.

Then.

Arwen says with Frodo on her lap : "If you want him, come and claim him!"

........

I don't know why, but I just hated it. It doesn't stand out at all if you didn't know the story. I hated it. It spoiled the whole trailer. Why did it have to be there? Everybody hates it! If Arwen needed to be on the trailer, why not show her peacefully in Rivendell? Anyhow. The last clip was grand and saved the trailer.

Gandalf saying very strongly "You can not pass!"

I just have to close my eyes in the movie.

PS. I also think that modern women need more passive, submissive and feminine role models in the movies. Agreed?

[Tar-Steve]

I haven't actually seen a clip of her saying that but I don't need to. It's disgusting. It's out of character for Arwen, for elves, for the entire story, for the author. Gildor was disturbed by the hobbit's news of the riders ("Flee them" & "Do not speak to them", he said to Frodo). Then here comes the tough chick. The whole bit has that stupid, comic book, Stallone/Schwarzenegger reek to it.

(Thanks a lot Gloer! I was in a pretty good mood before this!)

It's just such a laughable, throw-away piece of script poop.

My apologies to comic book readers and writers everywhere.

[ReadWryt]

Oh, c`mon! What's wrong with Frodo no longer finding the strength inside himself to stand up to the Nazgul on his own and defy them? I think it's quite quaint that instead he is unconscious on a horse while some sword wielding elven tart spits a challenge at the Wraiths just before perforing the incantation that brings forth the flood at the ford! It really isn't about the events that happen in the story so much as the basic core tale, and it's bound to change in the telling anyways!

Three characters are wounded in this scene, Frodo, Glorfindel and Elrond. It's a sad, sad thing...

[Tar-Steve]

I've seen that "You cannot pass!" clip before (I can't remember where.) I DO like that one.

[Thorin]

Horse-pucky! Gandalf was always in control! In the trailer he practically screams it out like the Balrog is deaf or something....The impression I get out of the meeting is almost a deathly silence broken only by the crackling of the Balrog's flames and his occasional snort, as Fellowship and Orcs together hold their breath..then sternly and with calm conviction Gandalf intones. "You cannot pass!"

Not screaming it at the top of his lungs and flying off the handle.

Gandalf also says a few more lines on top of that. Was he screaming those too? Somehow that really makes him look like a psycho. I guess PJ had to make him that way to justify his "IS IT HERE??? IS IT SAFE?? blubbering, scattered haired crazy old man Gandalf.

[ReadWryt]

Yes Thorin, if there were two things that J.R.R. Tolkien made quite clear in his writings it's that 1) He would much rather see someone make changes in the PLOT then alter the Characters and 2) Gandalf is a man of Dignity...that he may be cranky and a bit overly fond of Hobbits are not in question, but he is never Blundering or in any way out of controll. If I were not in a hurry, I would quote you the letters in which he states these, but for those of you who have copies of The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, look in the appendix under Forrest J. Ackerman, or Zimmerman.

[Moose]

on the official website located at www.lordoftherings.net. If you want to really get PO'd click on Arwen's name. One part of it flashes the words "Her Strength will Save Them" then you see the whole "If you want him, come and claim him!" BS.

Like most of the posts I've seen here, and on other threads here, I will go see the movie. I honestly think it will be grand, but I am very disheartened by the changes that PJ, or is that BJ, made.

Moose

[Thorin]

"Her strength will save them." That's just about as bad as "Their love will keep hope alive" with Arwen and Aragorn.

That is so..so....WRONG!!!! It defies words to try and explain this ridiculous clap-trap! Not only has it horrifically deviated from JRR, it even creates a sub-plot off of the movie. What a horrible mis-interpretation of LoTR this is turning out to be. And the media's ignorance isn't helping any either! This whole thing is moving farther and farther away from what Tolkien intended. I think that it is even going to move farther away from what even PJ intended as ignorant media-mediums take something from the movie and twist it around and present nonsense to an unknowing population and begin to make the story their own....WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!! IT'S ALL SO WRONG!!!

"Her strength will save them...."

Good Lord...surely it can't get any worse... :(

[Moose]

the trailer. It actually says "Her Courage will Save Them". Still the same problem as Thorin stated. COMPLETELY different from the original story line.

Even more "clap-trap" is there is a trialer called "The Fellowship". It is about the Fellowship that is created to go with the ring and protect Frodo. Several individual shots of The Fellowship members start going across the screen, Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, Aragorn then, you probably guessed it by now, Arwen.

I am going to see the movie, but I will have my bullshit flag with me.

Moose

[Thorin]

I don't really know where you saw that or in what context it was portrayed, but Jackson made it pretty clear that he wouldn't change LoTR drastically like putting someone else in the Fellowship and everything I've seen has always said the Fellowship was only nine.

Rest your fears, despite what you saw. Arwen is not in the Fellowship....Even if Jackson wanted to, there just is no room for her character. Nothing for her to do and Jackson would be creating much more work for himself to totally alter all the events the Fellowship goes through to accomodate Arwen.

[Moose]

on the Lord of the Rings Movie official site http://www.lordoftherings.net/index.html . At the bottom left of the home page click on LOTR video. That page has several "Character TV Trailers". This is where I saw this video at. I do agree that Jackson has said there are only 9 members of The Fellowship, but the distint impression one is left with from this trailer is that Arwen is one of them. I know, from other things that PJ has said and the other trailers that she isn't included in the 9. I figure that this is another way to deceptivly appeal to a "broader" audience.

Just my thoughts,
Moose

[ReadWryt]

Ah! I see where THIS is going...We have this trailer that implies that Arwen is a member of the Fellowship and then once the movie comes out, we see an article in Entertainment Weekly about all the mail that New Line got angry about Arwen not being in more of the movie because people thought that she was a part of the Fellowship. Other media outlets belonging to AOL/Time Warner like CNN mention the article and suddenly PJ has, by default, the "public outcry" to insert Arwen into more of the movie....

[Tar-Steve]

I don't think we've been thinking this Arwen thing through to how bad it's likely to get.

Q: What the &*$# is going to be the defacement of "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King" to keep her around and part of the story?

Let's hope the public outcry is for less Arwen because TT & RotK haven't even hit the cutting room yet.

[ReadWryt]

Actually, from what I understand they are allready in the can and awaiting the Post Work to be done by WETA, inserting CGI stuff and shrinking the Hobbits and Gimli and such...*Shrug* Could well be though...

[Tar-Steve]

Wow! I figured that they would've been plenty busy getting "Fellowship" completed for release and left the cutting of the succeeding films for afterwards. However, I've done no research and I'm in no position to disagree with you.

[Elbereth547]

I have been really nervous about the movie coming out, and after seeing trailers and commercials with Arwen, I completely freaked out! Drives me crazy that they are making her so important when she was such a frilly, useless, unimportant character! Burger King put her on a cup but not Sam! What's up wit that?!

[Greymantle]

Does no one understand Arwen? She's not, of course, a warrior; however, she is a character of immense importance and inner strength. No one seems to understand her sacrifices or her inspiration for others.

Oooh! Post #1000!

[Elbereth547]

I guess I don't really have a problem with Arwen, I am just annoyed that they made it out that she actually fought and stuff when she didn't. I had never pictured her as the warior princess type!

[Aerin]

Arwen, in the book, wasn't a big character. She was in the background, and that's where she should stay! Arwen is not Xena, but nobody, including PJ, seems to realize that! I am very mad about her part in the movie, and now I find out that they are making her out to be part of the Fellowship! :mad: It's just not LOTR!!!!

[Rosie Cotton]

I wish people would stop worrying about Arwen being a warrior princess. Her part IS bigger, and that's annoying in itself, but it's mainly the love story between her and Aragorn that we'll see. I just read today (sorry I don't remember where) that the only part where she wields a sword is at the ford. I'm as angry as everyone else is about her chauffering Frodo, but she won't be "Xenarwen: Warrior Princess."

[ReadWryt]

Well Rosie, wield the sword or not, I'm actually a bit more mortified by the pictures I've seen of her chatting up Galadriel...

[Grond]

Hey Greymantle, I'm gettin' ready to throw Moose's bs flag on you for that comment about Arwen. Get back with the program. PJ sux.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Rosie Cotton
I wish people would stop worrying about Arwen being a warrior princess. Her part IS bigger, and that's annoying in itself, but it's mainly the love story between her and Aragorn that we'll see. I just read today (sorry I don't remember where) that the only part where she wields a sword is at the ford. I'm as angry as everyone else is about her chauffering Frodo, but she won't be "Xenarwen: Warrior Princess."

As much as I'm miffed with how Arwen is portrayed, and that right there is unexcusable, regardless of how much people want to justify it or pooh-pooh its significance...it's WRONG!
I am more miffed with how everyone is taking this role to the extreme where it's as if Arwen has every right to be there, and her character is being beefed up to justify Liv Tyler playing the part.

The media is making her out to be some sort of warrior/Saviour of the quest to destroy the ring ("Her courage will save them them", "Their love will keep hope alive"). Arwen dolls and images splayed all over merchandising before some of the Fellowship, who in the real LoTR play a huge role well over Arwen. Tolkien is becoming more and more unrecognizable as the movie approaches. Arwen's original role in LoTR is being cast aside and replaced by this facade of a character that would have Tolkien shuddering. And the public is eating it up...."Ooh, Liv Tyler playing Arwen, she must be some REAL character. After all, her courage will save them!"

Down with PJ, but also down with the media who understand JRR Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings as well as I understand Chinese. :mad:

[Gloer]

Down with PJ!

No purely Tolkien free cinematic ****, skip if you feel like it:
I am very exited about this movie. The last time I was so exited about a movie release was Matrix and Gladiator and Episode I.

The Gladiator I went to see twice. First because I was a huge fan of the anticent spectacle films made during the 50's. Ben Hur, El Cid, Quo vadis and such. I was a history freak right afterI learned to read and anticent history was my favourite area. And I loved to see that. And it always annoyed me if they deviated from the historical happenings. The music in Gladiator was marvellous and the battle in the beginning absolutely marvellous. Especially the calm before the storm of bloodshed. The laconic exchange of words between the commander Maximus and his loitenant definately sets the movie going. Lucius "They don't understand to give up when they are already beaten." Maximus "Would you give up? Would I?" The rest is just proving the point. In Churchills words: "We shall never surrender."

Ok. Matrix because I knew some Wachowsky brothers theme's from the comics. But I really got interested in it because of the movie trailer. And I just must say the movie was very well done. I saw it thee times. On the third time it wasn't so impressive anymore. Also the seriousness of the movie started to seem flat. It make's one think about basic metaphysical things and plays with one idea without making many typical mistakes of inconsistency. And it is all done with a very brilliant tempo between fast action and philosofy. But that is it.

Star Wars Episode, I admit I did wait for to see it. It was a must.
After that there has been good movies but nothing that I would have expected with great enthusiasm.

LOTR is absolutely one of the most awaited for movies ever for me.
And I am pretty sure it won't fail me. Psychologically I have neutralized the Arwen-effect (DWPJ!). It can only be a positive surprice since I expect a desaster. The rest of the movie should work and even give a good feel of the story. If it doesn't - then I am disappointed.

[Ancalagon]

Stand back, I think I am going to blow chunks............

http://movies.citysearch.com/feature/38444/interview2.html (http://)

Even I am pissed-off at the movie now, the more I here about this Arwen business the more I get annoyed.

[Aerin]

*Thinks evil thoughts at Liv Tyler especially*
I read Liv Tyler's interview, as well as the ones with Elijah Wood and Ian McKellan. Gad, why is Tyler so glad to give Arwen a big part??? She was a small character, and (correct me if I'm wrong) didn't Arwen show up in FOTR, but only for a little while? Tyler says she only showed up in ROTK, but I don't think so.

[Grond]

Let's see. If my aging memory serves me well, Arwen appears 1) In Rivendell in Elrond's hall on page 239, and later in the Gardens of Elrond with Aragorn on page 250. As far as I can tell, she doesn't appear at all in The Two Towers. She appears again in tRotK when she trots into Minis Tirith with her father on Midsummer Day on page 251. She appears again on page 252 when she gives Frodo the necklace and on 253 when Gimli and Eomer have their disagreement resolved. She is seen for the last time in the main plot of the book on page 256 where her parting from Elrond is documented. The only other mention of her is in the appendix where the "...Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" pages 337 - 344. Other mentions are made of her in the chronicle of the years... but that's it as far as the ole Hammer Boy can find.

***In anyone thinks I used my aging memory to come up with these references, I've got some Ocean Front Property in Arizona" to sell you***

[ReadWryt]

Grond my friend,

A little note, although you mean well, as does anyone posting incidents and naming page numbers, one should probably mention the Edition and Format of the book(s) one is refering to. The publication of this story has been varied, from the illegal Pippin and Penguin publications in the 60s to the fact that even Houghton Mifflin publishes it in everything from an All in One Volume edition to a 7 volume edition...

Good calls though, all...

[Grond]

Sorry all. That just goes to show you that I read many books but don't pay any attention to how they vary from edition to edition. I assumed that for the sake of consistency and presentation pages would remain the same in all version. (for the sake of the index if nothing else). But I stand corrected and just ignore the page numbers. You can Arwen's appearances in tFotR in Many Meetings and in tRotK in Many Partings and Appendix A.

Gosh, isn't that ironic that the only places Arwen appears is in those two chapters concerning meetings and partings. Didn't notice that before. There you go!

[Ancalagon]

Ok, I want you to read this on the official fanpage forum, please read and feel free to join in with your own opinions. My name is the same so you should have no difficulty in following the thread.

http://calder.decipher.com/cgi-bin/msgbd?lotrfanclub$backlink$8686-10170#8686-10170 (http://)

This is not an advert 'mods' so don't worry. I simply feel there are a number of very disillusioned people out there.

[Moose]

of the "Official Movie Fan Club" message forum as well, with the same handle. Anc is correct about the "very disillusioned people out there". However, in their defense, some of them have asked some good questions and I have, as best as I could, tried to give them direction. Some of them are genuinely interested in learning the truth, some are of the "darn the books, the movie is the thing" set and those will never be changed.

The ones that are really scarry though, are the ones who have read the books, say they love Tolkien, and actually think that the re-write of Arwen's part, et all, is OK and "don't have a problem with it". As a matter of fact, I've been called a "crotchety old purist" by more than a few on that board. I took it as a compliment.

Moose

[ReadWryt]

Ugggh! To be fair I noticed that not a soul was making comment on the Maggot Origins of Orcs, why Moria is so well lit for a bunch of caves, who Lurtz is, why with all the cuts for time, P.J. felt the need to add non-essential footage or what the deal is with the Wizard Duel...Anc, you PAID to be a member of that site??

[Moose]

to be use their message board. All you have to do is sign up. I must admit that I did join the fan club. OK, it was a moment of weakness and pride. I just wanted to have my name on those damed DVD's, OK.

Moose

[Ancalagon]

Trust me RW, I did not pay a penny to be on there. Though, I am paying for it now..........:)

[Thorin]

Come on RW, lets get me, you and Greymantle to all go on and REALLY ruffle some feathers...Some people just don't have any loyalty do they?

The acceptance of Arwen by fans of JRR is like a Stephen King fan accepting a remake of Christine done with a motorbike instead of a Plymouth Fury. Down with all of them too!

[ReadWryt]

Actually I see it more closely related to giving the character of "White Fang" lines in the movie adaptation...I'm going over there to join up...*Snicker*

[Ancalagon]

Oh, hoho...lots of fun and games to be had. Its nice to get ones teeth into a fresh debate with the PJ Sheep.

[Nimawae's hope]

I totally agree that the scene with Frodo riding with Arwen is TOTALLY STUPID! I could not have been more frustrated with the scene. I knew that Peter Jackson was going to give Arwen a larger part, and I did not mind it a bit.But that scene was just too much. Why did Jackson think that giving Arwen that part would help strengthen her character. To me, it just diminishes the personhood of Arwen. Her strength is not in having a big mouth. It is the presence she has as the daughter of Elrond.
I'm pretty accepting of most of the changes in the movie, but I'm having a real hard time swallowing this one.

[Drunken Dwarf]

Arwen the sword maiden. What exactly was the point of that? I would rather have 20 minutes of Tom Bombadil singing his annoying Hey Dol a Derry dol song than to watch Arwen on steroids saving the day. But hey it makes sense, because Gandalf looks like he just got out of a mental institution.

Liv Tyler wouldnt do the movie unless her character had more lines.

[DGoeij]

I finally saw the 'Arwen incident' AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH. Yuk. I could take leaving Tom out. I could do with an ugly-new-to-me-orc-lurtz-thing to give the ending a apocalytic spin (its a movie right).

But 'If you want him come and claim him':eek: who ever made that up, who ever read LOTR and thougth it was a great idea?????? Yuk, I need to clean my contact lenses.

Welcome to the forum mister Dwarf, just remember that you can't hit Tom, he'll sing you're beard off.

[Tar-Steve]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Actually, from what I understand they are allready in the can and awaiting the Post Work to be done by WETA, inserting CGI stuff and shrinking the Hobbits and Gimli and such...*Shrug* Could well be though...

Earlier in this thread, we discussed whether or not editing had begun on TT. There's a comment in this yahoo-blip about the London premier that mentions the 2nd movie is to be edited soon.

see:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011210/en/britain_lord_of_the_rings_2.html

[JanitorofAngmar]

I just browsed through that message board that you posted. I didn't look too too deep though. Alot of what I saw was just ridiculous.

I want to ask everyone this:

Do you think that in light of some of the "Holier-than-thou-Wood" marketing stunts, that maybe, just maybe they pay some kids (or use the film crew staff) to sit down at the computer, come up with a bunch of fan-type user names and hype the **** out of the movie, AND argue support for the idiotic changes or anything else they want to promote?

Gee what a cheap way to plant seeds of dissent or build hype. It's been done before. It's clear from the interviews and stuff that PJ & his groupies monitor public opinion on the internet. Hmmmm

If I were a movie maker I WOULD NOT pass up the opportunity to get a little free propaganda going for the price of some reading and typing.

"Hey, Kid(or adult for that matter)! Wanna get a tour of the movie set?...How about a signed 8x10 of your favorite character? How about something that costs me next to nothing but appeals to your fan-type nature?...Here's what I want you to do...O.K.?"

"Great! Now just say positive things about Liv, and everything and I'll be sure to get you an orc mask...deal!"

I know that it sounds a little conspiricy oriented but if you don't beleive that movie makers would stoop to that level...think again! You are fooling yourself. We've seen it already with other movies!

BE VERY AWARE OF THIS!!!!

JoA

[Tar-Steve]

Don't put it past them not only to recruit kids but to have their own marketing people join forums (yes, even this one) and pretend to be "fans". This is a common internet practice.

You can throw out so many "reviews" you read online for books, movies, games (especially games) are pure marketing deceit.

That's my opinion at least.

[Gloer]

I have also encountered some really strange attitudes on some forums.
I opened up a discussion here : This one.
I also opened a similar one in Entmoot.com: The worst change in FOTR.

The Entmoot-thread developed into a very pro-movie and changes as long as it is good. Here I got slammed and now everyone is talking about conspiracy.

Arwen sucks and that is it.

I really think PJ makes a mistake for marginalising the critique as purist's talk. He is not being consistent with his work or with the personality he tries hard to portray himself to be.
This Movie and it's creator have very little integrity if they do not admit that
1. they made a change
2. it was founded on somewhat loose arguments
3. it was a major change affecting many leading characters
4. it hopefully worked out ok, at least the studio and general public is pleased
5. we could have done it better, but we failed to do it
6. I didn't realize - I am sorry
7. But wait for the director's cut when there is no miss Tyler...

[Gloer]

Haa!

Tolkien fan's are realising the lie's and evil rumours spread by the Dark Lord Peter Jackson and his minions.

They are already starting to have doubts whether Arwen the graceful elven maid was really a challege-spitting war-***** that knows no fear for she is has a very tough nature hardened by all those years under the strict rules of his father Elrond in Rivendell. She was not a nice, beauty loving elven woman who avoided evil and violence and was well protected and loved by his Father. No Tolkien didn't see it right. A modern girl can not identify with something that is not LOUD and MOBILE. Girls have become as stupid as we boys have always been.

And Lurtz is the high captain of Saruman. Tolkien just didn't see a brilliant opportunity to have an Orc character that is a real theat to our heros. Ugluk from the book is lame. And you can't expect anyone to associate with the Hobbits that are scared of anything. (Unfortunately the Hobbits are stuck in the story like bad habits...) No, we need a LURZT to give a match against Aragorn and Boromir.

And the Wizards duel. Ok, I read somewhere that Tolkien was actually pondering on the possibility of Saruman, Aulë's maia, being the balrog in Moria. After all the felloship is wondering if Saruman was causing the bad weather on Caradhras. So it could be Saruman again blocking them, duelling Gandalf and then both survive. Ok. He never used this plot line - and rightly so because the balrog can be the cause of the destruction of Khazad-dum. That happened much before Saruman turned bad - plus is beyond his power.
Still there we have it a wizard's duel idea from Tolkien.

[Ghan-buri-Ghan]

When I first heard about the movie, I thought great I cant wait to see Tom Bombadil.... okay disappointment #1

Then I thought, they are probably going to have to create a female herione, because that is the ongoing trend... I can live with that. I mean I am happy that a movie is being made and that there is some effort to recreate some resemblence to the books, yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah! (yes I was in denial!)

Arwen saying "Come and take me(whoops! I mean 'him')" or whatever she says is over the top. It is sooooooooooooooo WRONG!!!!!! Frodo's character is about his ability to withstand temptation. THIS IS HIS FIRST REAL TEST AND HE IS NOT EVEN CONSCIOUS!!!!!!!!!

Will I still see the movie? Of course. Will I be griting my teeth every time Liv Taylor's character appears? So much so I probably need massive dental work.

What I am not going to do is wait in line all night like I did for "Star Wars: Phatom Plot" and be heavily dissapointed.

It actually sounds like a good movie. I just hope I don't throw something at the screen or beat up the projectionist or something that may ruin my experience.. or send me to jail.

[Drunken Dwarf]

Im confused as to the reason for turning Arwen into a sword maiden. My original thought was that they changed her because they felt that they needed a strong female character to attract the young girl audience. But then I remembered Eowyn!

So what is the purpose? Does PJ just feel the need to change the character just for the sake of change? Or does it have something to do with an actors ego? I am positive that Liv Tyler and her agent are the reason for this tripe.

I plan on giving a big lustful boo when she shows her face on screen.

But guess what? Im probably going to enjoy the heck out of the movie even with all of the stupidity.

[Grond]

Welcome dear Drunken Dwarf. Boy.... are you gunna be disappointed. They chose Arwen because they intend to float her character through all three movies. This wasn't possible with Eowyn because of the nature of the story and the fact that she wasn't a significant presence until The Battle of Pelennor Fields. So..... create a more in-depth love story with a sword wielding she-elf (they actually call Arwen that in the movie promos) and create new plot to allow her to have fairly significant presence in all three films and you get...... ta ta ta tummmmm! (sound of trumpets) Peter Jackson's Poorly Conceived, Poorly Written and Even More Poorly Portrayed The Lord of the Rings.... The Fellowship of the Ring!

That's the way I see it.... but I'm just Melkor's dumb hammer. ;)

[Drunken Dwarf]

Grond that is terrible. Looks like I am going to be doing a lot of booing. Can I still lay some of the blame on Liv Tyler? For some reason it makes me feel better to do so.

[Grond]

Actually DD, I imagine that the movie will be awesome and something I'll enjoy seeing more than once. It just won't be the Tolkien story I've come to love so well.

[Drunken Dwarf]

Me too... sigh

One thing this movie has already done for me is that Im reading the books again. I just started the Uruk-Hai chapter in the TT. The last time I read them was probably 5 years ago. I had forgotten how wonderfully written these masterpieces are! The sequence of events from Balins tomb to Gandalfs fall on the bridge still raises the hair on the back of my neck.

This is probably the tenth time Ive read the books going back to the first time around 1979. I enjoy it just as much now as I did then.

[Ancalagon]

Ahhhh, JanitorofAngmar,

You are a 'conspiracy theorist' after my own heart. Too true, too true.

[ReadWryt]

Apparently in the film Saruman IS making the bad weather..

I don't think though that they are paying kids, or anyone for that matter, to post rediculous things in favor of the film. From my experience on the internet there is enough bandwidth to go around and truth to be told small clots of like minded souls will often settle together clinging tenaciously to whatever rediculous misconceptions or unpopular beliefs, bolstered by the sheer numbers in their ranks to defend their opinions. Sometimes they are right, sometimes wrong... none the less I can't see some exec being bothered to sign checks and some other person being put in charge of checking up on a bunch of posters to Forums to make certain that they are earning their pay...*Shrug*

..unless...

It could possibly be that individuals who had allready shown a propensity for defending Jackson were offered free opening day tickets. This might be enough to entice some folks to act this way in light of the smooth tongue of Anc...But then, with the traffic that this place gets I wonder why there wouldn't have been such attention payed to this place other then that it repopened so late in the game.

[Grond]

Hey RW, if PJ will give me another 5 sets of Burger King mugs and some of the action figures... I'll say anything he wants. hahahaha!!

[JanitorofAngmar]

ReadW,

Yeah, I'll give you that. However, I wouldn't propose that it be that organized either (well, hell! I think I will on second thought).

If we look at the "Animal" fiasco and combine that with Millie Vanilli (or however you spell those "flash in the pans"), we get a look at a pretty underhanded approach to manipulating public/marketing opinion.

Think too about just how many truckloads of money must have been driven to the doors of some of those rock stars singing on those new Gap commercials. Those guys should have just tattooed "SELL OUT" on their foreheads and be done with it.

Remember the 70's (I know you do oldtimer) Remember the Coke commercial? How much money was spent incorporating a subliminal message into that commercial? We'er talkin 70's here, not computer world 80's, 90's, and now. And that was a gamble too. They KNEW there was no conclusive evidence to suggest that subliminal messages even worked.

$300 million towards the movie. How much was spent on marketing for Toy Story? Phantom Spinach? Titanic?

So far the advertising for FOTR has been slim compared to the above. So why not spend fewer dollars, and convert the die-hards? If it becomes a "cult" movie, the rewards (considering box & royalty deals nowadays) would be ongoing and phenomenal. Why spend millions selling it to a bunch of short-memory public schlepps, when you can manipulate the "die-hard fans" into seeing it again, and again, and agian, and again. Isn't that what Lucas is doing with the Star Wars new releases? "See it again for the first time"...whatever...

I sit in a boardroom on a weekly basis and the stategies, and manipulations (attempted & successful), are enough to make you puke. I'm not even in a profit based organization. I can imagine just how much worse it is in a New Line Cinema boardroom...psychologists, marketers, focus group leaders, analysts, Fidel Castro...on, and on.

I would never underestimate marketing and what goes on behind closed doors. The days of a **** shoot sell are OVER! Small business wise it's work hard and hope it catches on. Big business wise it's MAKE THEM WANT IT! ANYWAY WE CAN! (insert deep commanding voice).

Posturing, cool-hunters, government lobby and influence...why should the movie industry be any different than Pepsi, and oil companies?

That's my long drawn out rant!

I'll shut up now and go back to my mop....sorry...

JoA

[ReadWryt]

Ah my mop wielding friend,

I see your point. It seems though that rather then create hype it would be easier and cheaper to get people like Sibley and other so called "Tolkien Scholars" to simply Poo-poo the rantings of people like us who are "...obviously fanatical..." and "...lack understanding of the necessities of film making...". They could have, just as easily, castigated us as being "zealots", as Peter Jackson said of our esteemed Webmaster. But I see where you are comming from and agree that it is insidious the methods used to promote products in this day and age.

Luckily this hype will die down quickly. New Line's contract with the Theater Owners is such that they (New Line) make the bulk of their money the first couple of weeks, after that the theaters make the lion's share of the box office, so it behooves the studio to cram as many people in front of the 10,000 movie screens world wide which will be showing brand new prints of the film as early as they can so as to make the higher profit margin. It will be an interesting year for Hollywood in that, in a year of economic trouble and turmoil, a year in which the Motion Picture industry will have made less overall then they have any other year in the past ten, that most of the money will have clumped it's self into the pockets of so few, with HUGE openings for Potter and LotR.

I wait with great interest to see what methods are used to promote the next film, because word of mouth will spread about the changes and additions made by P.J., and many more people will have read the books...and the books naturally draw readers into the fantastic and complete world of Tolkien in such a way that Mr. Jackson will be dealing with a much larger and much better read group of "zealots" the next time around...

[monkeyboy]

The 'Arwen' addition to the film is, i'm led to belive by one of the reviews on this site, limited. But i still can't belive that she's been built up in this was, unless it is to attract the younger female audience with a strong woman...
Wasn't she in Rivendell when Frodo was at the ford....?

I haven't seen the film as most fans haven't either...but im quietly hopeful that 'cheesy hollywoodesk' lines and misplaced artistic licence won't wreck the magic...
But of course, you can't please everyone...

[JanitorofAngmar]

Read,

I think you are correct in that. I too await the outcome following the die-down of the hype. It will be interesting to see from a 20/20 perpective (hindsight) how it all falls out.

So there are no box-office cuts in the deals? Geez, what's the front end cost?

I thought that it was standard a standard deal lately for a percieved heavy-hitter. Big movie moguls - "Give us 10% of the box of our movie or keep 100% of nothing." Isn't it kind of standard now, even for the big screen draws? I thought Jack Nic. claims a chunk of the box for his movies now just for appearing as the lead. He got it for Batman.

I'm off base probabbly.

Regards,
JoA

[ReadWryt]

My Jaunty Janitorial Jester,

No, it's almost allways a two tier take for the Box Office these days. Typically the Theater Owners make their money off the Concessions for the first week or two until the cut breaks in their favor. As for Stars and their take, even Nicholson only gets a cut of the Studio's cut.

I have seen figures that break down to the Studio getting 80% the first week or two, then choking back to 30% for the rest of the run.

[Ancalagon]

And you claim not to advocate my 'conspiracy theorist' idea?

I feel that money has driven the rings production, though in order to make it, money has to. That said, the marketing moguls have an ever increasing grip on every aspect of our lives. Capitalism is driven by marketing. That goes without saying, however, because we demand more from the society we have had a part in creating, we have to accept that we will be taken along for the ride.

This production and many others in the past have seen their fair share of dillution in order to generate the mighty dollar. Yet, on the whole we have been relatively acceptant of this. I agree RW that after the 'hoohah' has died, people, unwilling to wait for the next exciting episode, will rush to buy their copies. Only then will they realise what a travesty it is to abuse these 'works of art' with the marketing mayhem that accompanies it. Yet, will anything be acheived, or is the wheel has already turned and the edits set in stone.

I think that the 2nd film will appear sooner rather than later in our cinemas. I even think we could see a summer release of the Towers and a Christmas release of the King. If the movie does not live up to the expectations or profit margin anticipated, then the move to push the trilogy out will happen on the whim of the magnates. I hope I am wrong, I hope the whole thing is a success, but I would hate to see this confined to the history books as a spectacular flop after the first year. For if it is forgotten as quickly as it was made, Tolkien will suffer as a result.

[Gloer]

Originally posted by ReadWryt


I don't think though that they are paying kids, or anyone for that matter, to post rediculous things in favor of the film. From my experience on the internet there is enough bandwidth to go around and truth to be told small clots of like minded souls will often settle together clinging tenaciously to whatever rediculous misconceptions or unpopular beliefs, bolstered by the sheer numbers in their ranks to defend their opinions. Sometimes they are right, sometimes wrong... none the less I can't see some exec being bothered to sign checks and some other person being put in charge of checking up on a bunch of posters to Forums to make certain that they are earning their pay...*Shrug*

..unless...

It could possibly be that individuals who had allready shown a propensity for defending Jackson were offered free opening day tickets. This might be enough to entice some folks to act this way in light of the smooth tongue of Anc...But then, with the traffic that this place gets I wonder why there wouldn't have been such attention payed to this place other then that it repopened so late in the game.


I visited this official movie message board. Moose had been correcting and pin pointing the clear changes and weakness of PJ's movie. And he was immidiately attacked by at least two nicknames, Rosie and Warlady.

This Rosie is very consistent on the board especially always when someone brings critique on it. She/he delicately tries to water down all the critique that is well based and combines things to it that are easily dodged. Rosie makes it look as if PJ's movie stands the groud against the critique! Especially Arwen plot:

- first say that it would be great to see Glorfindel, but he is not really central so Arwen is understandable
- then divert to other things such as love story from the appendix, Tom Bombadil, etc...
- stamp the critic as purist
- stamp the critic as basically just showing negative attitude, ask if you have anything good to say...Moose of course did!
- then say that Frodo doesn't really do anything at the Fords - it is the horse (my GOD! how stupid) if the critique still seems to be believable
- and last - say that the issue has already been debated to death ie. kill the issue!

All in all Rosie's arguments are way too consistent, clean, planned, informed of the book and especially about what actually IS in the FILM. So she is an insider. I believe this Rosie is a messageboard POLICE and AGITATOR.

We should inform the poor movie-viewers on that board that there is a WORMTONGUE amongst them...

[Thorin]

Maybe we should get Eru Webmaster Pence to go in there and diminish her to a whimpering blob of quivering jello as she denounces her heretical views under the punishing arguments of the Webmaster of The Forum!

ReadWryt and I will be there to slap on the chain that once held Melkor and she can be thrown into the void to join her master.

Hmmph...

[JanitorofAngmar]

Anc,

Well, see that's a perfect example! What drives this rosie to fight tooth and nail for the changes in the movie? Unless she has some sort of bizzare crush on PJ (or is related somehow through inbreeding) why would she spout that rhetoric? Clearly she read the books. If someone had read the books BEFORE the movie hype started, I find it hard to believe that they would discard the integrity of the book for the movie.

I think you have indeed found a wormtongue. I would be interested to call her what she is believed to be and gauge her response (too bad you can't see her eyes when you do).

All this of course is assuming that your research is solid (and I assume it is). I don't want to attack anyone to harshly based on heresay (unless they are a public figure, like PJ).

In your argument I find the following

"All in all Rosie's arguments are way too consistent, clean, planned, informed of the book and especially about what actually IS in the FILM."

To be some of the more damning evidence. Although there are indeed some stubborn people out there with strong convictions and passion. I doubt if you could remain on a board for long without at least capitulating to other opinions once and a while. To maintain that kind of (and I'm loath to use this word here) integrity in your argument implies a purpose, or crusade if you will.


I browse other boards on occasion, but honestly don't read very deep (I find this one is the best by far!). And the "plastic" face of some of the participants does leave me wondering.

Dollars to doughnuts dude! (or here in Canada Loonies to Timbits, eh?)

[Thorin]

Snort, chuckle

don't even go their JOA. Explaining Timbits to our southern and UK neighbors is just to funny. Especially when we pummel the Cariboo that keep migrating to Vancouver with them...I'm assuming you've seen Talking to Americans on This Hour has 22 Minutes.

I consider myself fairly stubborn in support of JRR over the movie, but I usually try to see someone else's point providing that it is based on sound logic and evidence and not just foolish stubborn pride. I am willing to say that the movie looks like it is well done on the outside and that it will be a bockbuster smash...I can't accept the changes though and the hypocrisy. I wonder where this Rosie is coming from with he opinions and why she feels the way she does?

[Moose]

having had several "messages" from her, and posting back as well, I don't think she's a "plant" (for lack of a better term). She is however, as was stated in an earlier post, very concise and her statements are well planned. That in and of itself wouldn't necessarily make her a plant, just someone who has thought some of those things out. She seems to be very honest in her opinions and is happy with the "status quo". This doesn't make her a bad person, just happy that the movie is finally making it to the "silver screen".

I have tried, to no avail, to state my case as clearly as possible against some of the obvious changes that have been made to the plot of the book that make absolutely no sense. I have been called negative, CROTCHETY (I actually like that one), and a "purist" (I actually like that one as well). Rosie's deal is that, as she has stated to me on several occasions, is that while she doesn't like the changes, there is nothing that can be done about these changes now so why gripe about it. I on the other hand belive that I have every right to complain about them and to state my opinions on those matters regardless of my inability to make any difference to those changes at present.

On the other hand I actually like some of the posts on "that other" board and have had some rather comical exchanges with those there. I hope not to offend any with this comparison, but I come to this board when I am wanting stimulating, intellectual (albeit comical at times) discussions about JRR Tolkien and his books, and I go to the other board when I just want to "chat" with folks that share my excitement over the upcoming movie, and I am exited about the movie and plan on going to see it when it is released here in the "States" on the 19th.

That's how I see the differences between the two boards. This board is more cerebrial MOST of the time, and the other is just a chat room type thing. You have to remember "that other" board is on the Official Movie Fan Site and we really shouldn't expect much more than that from most of them on "that other" board. Maybe that is "stereotyping" but if you will look on there you will see threads that start out "Who is the cutest". With that I rest my case.

Just my thoughts,
Moose

[Tar-Steve]

Moose is a plant too! They're everywhere and they're stealing our strawberries!

j/k

[Valinorean]

If anyone has any doubts about the New Line's marketing strategy, Check out:

http://www.yil.com/features/lotr.asp?Frame=false&Volume=07&Issue=12&Keyword=lotr

All the published comments seem to say "We were worried that PJ couldn't pull it off, but this is the greatest movie of all time!"

One disturbing quote:

"As the release of New Line Cinema's The Fellowship of the Ring quickly approaches, its online promotion is reaching a fever pitch. Of course, incessant online promotion isn't new, but what's refreshing is that (so far) the folks at New Line have not been overly protective of their material—J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy . . ."

OMG!!! "THEIR MATERIAL" and "TRILOGY" stand out the most to me . . .

To me, this is even more proof that we need to keep an eye out for "plants" . . . (sorry- I keep envisioning Little Shop of Horrors)

". . . the depth of the online LOTR fan base would be a major boon to any movie, it also points to one of the major dilemmas that director Peter Jackson faces . . . Jackson is working with a story aficionados have been envisioning privately for years. One false move by Jackson and the cries of anguish will reverberate throughout the echo chamber that is the Net. That may explain why he and the studio have gone out of their way, both online and off, to court the fan community. "

I would have appreciated it more if PJ would have expended his energy getting it right, rather that courting us now.

[Ancalagon]

I empathise with you Moose, I know they are not all bad. Neither do I feel is Rosie, I think she is actually what one might term a 'moderator' on that board.

[Gloer]

...and they can very well direct the course of discussion.

I feel that on that particular board the aim is not so much to deny what we are saying. They want to take power from our point of view. They do not want to change it back - they can't do it anymore. So to minimize the damage they lighten up the issue.

And then what happens?

The marketing side sees that there is not so much opposition to amending the text. And guess what happens to TT and ROTK!
Yes. They get molested. Arwen in TT for sure, all out elves fighting and so on.

It is not really a matter of having a negative/positive attitude, seeing the better or the worse side of things when we show critique. I am very very much expecting for the movies. I probably love them. But I still want to pinpoint the weakness of it especially there where I think Peter Jackson could very well done a better job at the same cost, film time, casting. He just was careless to do a small change for him but a huge change for the story. And I refer to Arwen defying the Ringwraiths.
Anything else is more or less ok.

And I see it is very good to bring up the delicate sides of the scenes and the characters so that not just anything can be done to the story. PJ and his crew have proved that they can very well err in even a major thing while being so keen to follow the details.

May the Minas Tirith of The Tolkienformum.com stand unconquered!

[Tuor]

arg. bloody hell. that's ridiculous. gandalf performs an add-on to a spell elrond already had in place. that's very annoying. i hadn't seen that clip.

[Eomer Dinmention]

so what the hell is Arwen doing she doesn't play a role in the Fellowship does she
it doesn't mention her
unless i have to read it agen

[ReadWryt]

Actually, if you refer to Elrond and the Flood at the Ford, there is no mention of Elrond explicitly using magic to create the flood.

`Who made the flood?' asked Frodo.

**** 'Elrond commanded it,' answered Gandalf. `The river of this valley is under his power, and it will rise in anger when he has great need to bar the Ford. As soon as the captain of the Ringwraiths rode into the water the flood was released. If I may say so, I added a few touches of my own: you may not have noticed, but some of the waves took the form of great white horses with shining white riders; and there were many rolling and grinding boulders.

Elrond's command could easily have been to lean out a window and yell, "OPEN THE FLOOD GATES!". I do myself feel that Elrond could command such a thing...but this is where there is some confusion, for Elrond was possessed of Vilya, the Ring of Air, Gandalf wore Narya, the Ring of Fire and Galadriel held Nenya, the ring of Water. When one thinks of the "Mirror" of Galadriel one can imagine that she could instill magicks into the waters of the Reflecting Pool, and that the ring would assist, and Gandalf's Fireworks could easily have been borne of his wielding of Narya the Kindler, but in what way would Elrond use the ring of Air to command a flood other then to make the wind blow the waters downstream very quickly (Which is indeed what I imagine he did)?

But conversely there still is not presented evidence that Elrond used any magic to create the flood, and this makes even MORE offensive the idea that Arwen may well "cast a spell" at the Ford...

[Eomer Dinmention]

thankyou read
this makes sence now
and i think arwen should be in it
its more exciting she pretty good looking too :p

[Tar-Steve]

Earlier in this thread I said I liked that "You cannot pass!" clip from the movie. I'm taking it back. I saw "Passage to Middle-earth" last night and it was way too 'raving' for me. I've always imagined him saying it sternly but not screaming it like that. My memory must have been clouded up with something else because that wasn't how I was remembering the clip when I said I liked it.

Anyway ..........

[Moose]

about this whole Arwen thing is when people say "she is taking Glorfindel's place and they can understand". That is utter nonsense!

The role of Arwen at that point in the movie is actually taking two characters place, Glorfindel's part in actually being on the road beyond the Ford and Frodo's part of defying the Nazgul at the Ford. Glorfindel didn't ride with Frodo to the Ford, he put Frodo on Asfaloth and the horse bore Frodo to the Ford and there Frodo pulled his Barrow-Down blade and defied the Black Riders by himself.

I have told several people that I would be just a PO'd if Glorfindel had taken Frodo to the Ford. The screenwriters have taken one of, what I feel anyway, Frodo's "defining" moments in the story. Even though weakened from travel and blade, near unconciousness (sp?) from the poison tip of the Nazgul dagger, he still drew himself up and defied them. Instead of that we have Arwen drawing a sword and crying out "If you want him, come and claim him!"

Also that statement, in and of itself, just proves the point that the writers don't have a clue. The Nazgul didn't want Frodo, they wanted The Ring. "Come and claim him" indeed!

Also, Arwen was a powerful Elf, but even Gandalf (if I remember correctly) said he wasn't sure if he had the power to resist The Nine alone, and he is a Maia.

Damnation, where is my blood pressure medication!

Just my thoughts,
Moose

[Moose]

I have become a Member. No longer does the term "Junior" appear under my name.

It couldn't have happened on a better subject.

Just my thoughts,
Moose

[ReadWryt]

Indeed my large antlered friend,

I have been saying all along that should it be true that Arwen performs a "spell" to cause the flood at the ford then it actually damages three characters other then Arwen herself. It denies Frodo the chance to finally muster the courage to directly oppose the power of the evil, in the face of creatures who's main and most potent power is to instill FEAR, and defy them even though he can see them for what they are and is deeply wounded at the time. It ignores Glorfindel altogether, and it belittles Elrond's role in the story. Altotgether in one fell swoop Peter Jackson does damage to the characterization of FOUR individuals from the story, and he and others discount this as merely a cinematic expediency...

[Moose]

I had forgotten about the possiblilty of the "spell" at the Ford. Now I need a good shot of Crown Royal to go with my blood pressure medication (actually I don't take BP meds)

Moose

[Gloer]

Readwraith:

I think we have to add to the list also the Ringwrights.
They are supposed to be as frightening as anything can be and there comes a young elven girlie who is not a bit afraid. I think they are compromised to be much less than they are.

And far fetchedly we have to also consider again what sort of a man falls for that powerful and fearless elven girl. Would the Aragorn from the books still fall for her and feel that he needs to fight to make Middle Earth safe for her tostay with him. I mean - ARagorn could just lay back and let this miss do the job!

[Bill the Pony]

Originally posted by Gloer
And far fetchedly we have to also consider again what sort of a man falls for that powerful and fearless elven girl. Would the Aragorn from the books still fall for her and feel that he needs to fight to make Middle Earth safe for her tostay with him. I mean - ARagorn could just lay back and let this miss do the job! [/B]

Ouch! I have to react to this one. Do you mean women have to be weak and fearful to be attractive to men????!
Don't get me wrong I don't like the role Arwen is getting exactly for the reasons that have been mentioned above already. But I like to believe that a strong and powerful woman is more attractive than a weak and fearful one.

[Gloer]

No. I don't mean that women should be anything like that.

I mean that Arwen is the cheaf motivator for Aragorn to start taking serious action to reclaim the throne and taking control of Middle Earth from Sauron. He wants to show the woman (and her father) that he is what he is hoped to be.

But here we have Arwen that seems quite capable of managing herself against Sauron. It somehow diminishes Aragorn's quest, his urge to finally be th king and destroy Sauron. Not entirely but somewhat. In the book Arwen appears to be a late born daughter of Elrond. Elrond has kept her away from all the danger and evil lurking outside Rivendell. She seems quite innocent. That kind of a girl that makes a man want to protect her - her power I think is not in confrontation.

[Eomer Dinmention]

beautifully said
i quite agree
yes i do :cool:

[Bill the Pony]

Originally posted by Gloer
No. I don't mean that women should be anything like that.


That's a relief. Thanks for clearing that up

[Xzizor]

I dont know why Drunken Dwarf is so nuts about Arwen. I think Livis stunning in her role. She is an elf.

Comon guys to put in all names from the book in a 3 hour film would completely mess up the film and make it un viewable for people that have not read the book 10 times. A film like that would never be done so shut up and be happy with what we get....

[Drunken Dwarf]

I quite agree Xzisziziidorror. Live Tyler has brought new depths to the Arwen character. Such as her role as leader of the fellowship, savior of Frodo and Ringbearer.

[Moose]

I too, am swayed to that point myself. I really don't understand why J. R. R. Tolkien didn't give Arwen this role to begin with. It looks like he could've written The Lord of The Rings to have been more gender sensitive, there by enhancing the novel as a whole. Maybe, just maybe, if he had done that his works would not have been relocated to the dust bin of a few zealots who are, more than likely, closet male chauvinist.

Why, if he had done just that he might have had a novel that could have been voted the greatest work of literature of the last century.:confused:

Give me a break:mad:

Just my thoughts, (no they aren't) Yes they are damit, shutup!
Moose

[Deathknell]

I took the time to read the Lord of the Rings again recently, in preparation for the movie, as I'm sure many of you did. I too am disappointed in the choice to expand Arwen's role in the film...not only does she not speak at all in FOTR, she is barely even seen, and then only fleetingly. To afford her a large speaking part, and involve her character in the meeting at the Ford, is in my opinion an unneccessary cinematic license.

There is nothing in the trilogy that needs to be changed, in my opinion, to make it "better" for a screenplay. Granted, much has to be left out due to time constraints, but to add script and action where there is none in the book I feel is detrimental to the story, which in my opinion is one of great beauty and complexity.

I feel Liv Tyler was a fine choice for the part, and I don't feel that the portrayal of strength was apart from Tolkien's opinion of women (witness Éowyn's efforts on the field of battle in ROTK, and prior to that her heartbreaking efforts to persuade Aragorn to allow her an opportunity to join him on the field). It's that Tolkien's imagery regarding Arwen simply didn't fit with the way PJ is portraying her.

The best example I can think of of a film sticking very close to a novel - and STILL being an enchanting, beautiful movie with few problems - was, of course, Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone. I have NEVER read a book that was made into a movie that retained nearly every important line spoken by nearly every important character with not a single word changed. It was a beautiful effort and worth high praise for it's cautious preservation of J.K. Rowling's labors.

I guess I still can't figure out WHY some directors (even really good ones who are loyal to the stories they are portraying, as I am sure PJ is) find it necessary to alter the author's work at all. why have Gandalf saying "They are coming" in Moria when it was another character speaking that in the book? Why have Galadriel say "If you do not find a way, no one will" when it was actually Elrond (I think) who said it in the book?

I will still see the film...I expect I will be moved and enjoy it very much. But it will not be Tolkien's supreme vision that I am enjoying, and knowing that I believe my heart will not be moved as greatly as it would be otherwise.

Am I the only one who wept when completing the third novel, when the Ringbearers left for the Grey Havens? Perhaps I am too sensitive, but it is the preservation of those beautiful and powerful images that I would work to death to preserve, if I were the director of a film about such a profound and deeply inspired work of literature.

[Tar-Steve]

Awesome first post! Welcome to our forum Deathknell.

No. You were not the only person who cired. (Though I think some people cry because there's no more story to read.)

[Grond]

Grond agrees with Tar-Steve and welcomes you to the forum.... but Grond only cries when there are no more elf jerks to pound into dust.

[ReadWryt]

A film like that would never be done so shut up and be happy with what we get....

Oh yeah...That's the idea. We should just be "Happy" with "what we get". Why hold a Director to the standards that they claimed? What good is complaining that 4 characters were changed in major ways in order to let Arwen be portrayed as she is when Liv Tyler looks so darned good playing her...?

[Deathknell]

In relation to Tar-Steve's post about Gandalf's heated shouting on the Bridge at Kházad-dûm from Dec. 13...

I read FOTR about three or four weeks ago, and what I recall is that Gandalf initially confronts the Balrog with stern but controlled confidence...

"Begone, flame of Udûn! You cannot pass. I am a wielder of the Secret Fire. Return to the darkness from whence you came! You cannot pass." (I think that is pretty close, don't have my copy with me.)

In the final event, as the Balrog moves to cross the bridge and attacks Gandalf, I believe all Tolkien gave us was that Gandalf "gave a cry and smote the bridge with his staff" knocking the Balrog off balance. It's not hard to imagine that Gandalf, incited to anger, would have loudly and firmly re-iterated his admonition to the Balrog - "YOU-CANNOT-PASS!!!"

Just a thought...I have WAY less trouble with this scene than with Arwen's expanded action at the Ford of Bruinen.

[Talierin]

There's a thread on the subject of crying through the book somewhere on here, either in the LOTR or Hall of Fire sections. It's called "Do You?"

Anyways, Welcome!:D

[menchu]

Welcome to all the new ones, as I don't have time to read all the posts!! :)

[Ancalagon]

I was struck by the criticism of the 'Authors' apparent lack of female input into the LOTRs and the need for Arwens profile to be enhanced to reinforce the role of women in todays society, thus alllowing a more 'politically correct' question to be answered in the movie.

What strikes me most however, is the ignorance of Galadriel as one of Tolkiens strongest (female or male) characters in all his work. Galadriel, if you have not read The Silmarillion, was a portrayal of the very essence of rebellion, wisdom, strength and foresight ever to have graced Tolkiens realm. My one true question in all of this is why Arwens role would be enhanced over Galadriels? For the sake of a love interest?

Sadly, unless one reads deeper into Tolkiens work, it seems this fact will ellude most of viewing public, which in my view is a bigger travesty than Arwen at the ford. I believe Tolkien viewed women with absolute reverence and admiration and in the case of Galadriel, established a heroine unparalled by any other character in Arda.