🧙 The Tolkien Forum 🧝

Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)

Helms Deep pics rant

Mithiril

Registered User
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
OK, I know I've worked very hard to get over the whole Arwen scene in FotR and have posted many times about how much I enjoyed the movie anyway, put aside my purist standards and tried to forgive PJ for altering the best book in the world. Get over it, I told myself.

And then I see pictures of Arwen at Helm's Deep, possibly looking like she has been involved in the battle somehow and I just ask WHY WHY WHY? There is no reason whatsoever to broaden her role to such an extent. Even if she brings him the sword like everyone is assuming, that doesn't leave it open to actual battle. I like Arwen, she's always been one of my favorite characters but have also admired Eowyn for her battle scenes and courage. We don't need Arwen to mutate into another Eowyn!

I need to get over it again, don't I?

Sigh

OK, I'll stop now. Sorry for the rant.

How does everyone else deal with this?
 

Arwen

Registered User
Joined
Nov 16, 2001
Messages
74
Reaction score
0
Location
Middle Earth
Im sure it sint a big part........im sure she will just do something little in the battle.
 

Mithrandir_II

Registered User
Joined
Dec 24, 2001
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Location
La Crosse, WI, USA
Originally posted by Mithiril
WHY WHY WHY?
[/B]
If you really wanna know why, I'll tell ya.

Its because those who haven't read the books wouldn't get it. Think about it... if they did it like the books it would be like this:

There is the first movie where Arwen is introduced... Then there is the second movie where there is no mention of Arwen whatsoever... then there is the third movie where Aragorn marries Arwen in the end.

those who haven't read the books or those who don't see the first movie (god forbid) would wonder where she came from. Without inserting her into the second movie the audience would forget about her during the 2 year gap between the 1st movie and 3rd movie.

Needless to say us Tolkien freaks would get it, but we have to put up with those ignorant folk (no offense, we know you're out there :) ) who don't know LotR by heart.

I wouldn't worry about it too much, I think PJ just wants to keep all the characters fresh in the audience's mind. If she wasn't in TTT those who haven't read LotR would walk out of the theater saying, "What ever happend to Arwen?"

Hope that clears some things up, I haven't heard officially if this is why Arwen is inserted into TTT, but it is my suspicion.
 

Mithiril

Registered User
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Yes, thank you both! You are right, of course, I'm sure there is a logical reason and I will try to have faith that it will all work well. I promise to return to my usual rational self now.

can't promise I won't have a relapse once in a while, though :)
 

DGoeij

Pan Narran
Joined
Dec 3, 2001
Messages
938
Reaction score
2
Location
The Netherlands
If this is your most negative way of expressing your concerns about the movies, I'd say you need to post a heck of a lot more. You give a thoughtful and involved opinion. Great. A lot better than the ranting I've seen in other threads.:)
 

Mithiril

Registered User
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
I do a lot of "self-editing" -- works well typing but it's harder in real time! If I wrote what a thought as I looked at the Arwen as warrior pictures my rant would have been far worse -- just totally out of character. I mean, I can see leaving her in so that viewers of TTT have continuity, but it's just not how I percieved her character ... a"Lady", with grace and gravity, beauty and intelligence but not a sword swinging warrior. I mean, even elven princesses can't be everything to everybody, can they?

see, there I go again,
(deep breath)

I'm so totally over it...:D
 
S

salogel

Guest
I'm ok with the Arwen thing for now but if she starts hacking off orc heads in TTT then I'll be angry!
 
R

ReadWryt

Guest
...nice to see Peter Jackson is sticking to his word and not making any "Major Changes" in the characters...
 

Mithiril

Registered User
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Exactly, Mr. Readwryt sir, if a humble new member may address you as such:)

I can understand why timing of dialogue, or timing in general (length of time travelling, owning the ring etc) needs to be changed for the film version and some people's roles shuffled about a bit but the Arwen thing just gets me down because to me, Tolkien had intended for her to fill the role of an archetype (sp?): a classic, very romantic, almost distant Lady in the true sense of the word. Not that he pigeon -holed all women into such roles, as evidenced by Eowyn. To make her a warrior destroys the very essence of Arwen's character.

My own personal theory about why he did this -- purely hypothetical -- has to do with contract negotiations. I can't help wondering if Ms. Tyler agreed to do the part if her role was enhanced. He has stuck to the book fairly well in most other ways except this has veered so off track it is hard to fathom. So that is one theory, the other being that he has no respect for the work, which I don't think is true, but it is hard to tell from the different interviews he has given.

I look forward to TTT with anticipation and dread, much as I did the FotR and I was for the most part pleasantly surprised there, so I guess I hold out a little hope for the next one.
 

Thorin

LOTR Purist to the end
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
15
Quoted by Mithrandir II

"There is the first movie where Arwen is introduced... Then there is the second movie where there is no mention of Arwen whatsoever... then there is the third movie where Aragorn marries Arwen in the end.

those who haven't read the books or those who don't see the first movie (god forbid) would wonder where she came from. Without inserting her into the second movie the audience would forget about her during the 2 year gap between the 1st movie and 3rd movie."


Jackson could easily have introduced Arwen into the movies so the "newbies" would get used to her and still maintain Tolkien's Arwen's essence..
PJ could have created scenes in Rivendell of Arwen chatting with Elrond, or traveling to Lorien to be with Grandmother...The audience can see her, they know who she is and they know who's love she is...

I can't fathom how an Elven princess who is not supposed to wield any sword or fight any battles, finds herself at the battle of Helm's Deep, knee deep in the hoopla. I fail to see how such a distortion could introduce her into the consciousness of the viewers any better then the way I've mentioned above except to provide cheesy entertainment value and the unnecessary need to create more action in a scene where it doesn't need any...I guess it really wasn't made for the "fans" as PJ said, but for newbies to Tolkien. Even if that is the case, the distortion of Arwen is unnecessary.

The real question is not to give Arwen more screen time, the issue is whether she should be getting the kind of screen time she is and why she seems to be moving from a minor character to a major one...Heck this fabricated, warrior-chick, Tolkien-unrecognizable Arwen seems to be more popular than Gimli or Legolas in the public's mind, thanks to PJ...sad, sad.
 
Last edited:

daisy

Registered User
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
Location
canada
ka-ching!!

Look , I know it's painful, I know it's like, why New Coke? But it is time we all accept that....

the increase in Arwen's role is a money-making move, simple as that. If it was simply based on needing more continuity, then Arwen could still have been introduced in FOTR without that silly 'knife at my beloved's neck part'. And Peter Jackson would have been more apt to cast an unknown Brit or Australian....

Liv Tyler is a money-maker and a media magnet. She has been in every press junket, interview, poster.... well, many. I really really don't believe it was PJ's fear that movie-goers wouldn;t know what was happening, or we would all be going to the cinema to see his version of the Hobbit first, non??

And hey man, she's Steven Tyler's kid man....DREAM ON and Walk THIS WAY but watch out 'cause JAMIE'S GOT A GUN cause she's CRAZY but I have to go and watch the news now because I DON"T WANT TO MISS A THING .
 

DGoeij

Pan Narran
Joined
Dec 3, 2001
Messages
938
Reaction score
2
Location
The Netherlands
No way I'm going to accept it for the mere fact that it happened.

Saying, 'we"ll be true to the book', and then throw in an Arwen like this is simply lying. I'd accepted it better if PJ had said:
'Look, the film needs to be a succes to get it of the ground, so I'll meddle with a couple of things in the story to get a better picture. We'll do our best on scenery and characters, but some things have to be changed for the mere fact that its going to be a movie.'
Then we'd still have a debate about the Arwen incident, but at least I would have been warned by the one who made the movie.
 

Grond

Morgoth's Mace
Joined
Oct 31, 2001
Messages
3,040
Reaction score
37
Location
Somewhere in a Tolkien story.
Re: Re: Helms Deep pics rant

Originally posted by Mithrandir_II
If you really wanna know why, I'll tell ya.

Its because those who haven't read the books wouldn't get it. Think about it... if they did it like the books it would be like this:

There is the first movie where Arwen is introduced... Then there is the second movie where there is no mention of Arwen whatsoever... then there is the third movie where Aragorn marries Arwen in the end.

those who haven't read the books or those who don't see the first movie (god forbid) would wonder where she came from. Without inserting her into the second movie the audience would forget about her during the 2 year gap between the 1st movie and 3rd movie.

Needless to say us Tolkien freaks would get it, but we have to put up with those ignorant folk (no offense, we know you're out there :) ) who don't know LotR by heart.

I wouldn't worry about it too much, I think PJ just wants to keep all the characters fresh in the audience's mind. If she wasn't in TTT those who haven't read LotR would walk out of the theater saying, "What ever happend to Arwen?"

Hope that clears some things up, I haven't heard officially if this is why Arwen is inserted into TTT, but it is my suspicion.
I agree with your logic MithII but the way to have avoided the confusion would have been to base the script on the book. This train has wandered so far off course that I wonder if in The Return of the King, we won't see King Arthur being crowned in Camelot. :)
 

salva

Registered User
Joined
Nov 19, 2001
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
What will be next?

Well, I must agree with all of you. Arwen MUST NOT be there. I don't mind wheter it's a movie or she is the daughter of Steven Tyler or she is there to atract legions of sex-obsessioned teens. She MUST NOT be there, because she ruins the image of Arwen that we had. I thought of Arwen as a beautiful elf woman, that loved Aragorn, but never of an abort-of-a-god like that.
 

Mithrandir_II

Registered User
Joined
Dec 24, 2001
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Location
La Crosse, WI, USA
Re: Re: Re: Helms Deep pics rant

Originally posted by Grond
I agree with your logic MithII but the way to have avoided the confusion would have been to base the script on the book. This train has wandered so far off course that I wonder if in The Return of the King, we won't see King Arthur being crowned in Camelot. :)
I don't think it will drift too far of track, the main plot has been well-maintained thus far (with a few forgiveable acceptions) and I have some faith in PJ that he will keep it close.

You just have to realize some things get left out because you do not have the ability to cram all the back-story of a book into a movie. Even JRR himself could not fit it all into a book and maintain a storyline, that is why there are appendices. When creating a movie you don't have such luxuries.

PJ is just grabbing for a chance to introduce Arwen to the audience. I personally don't agree with how he chose to do it, but then again, if I were doing 3 movies... I would try and find some place to stick her into the second movie. Like I said, I don't like the fact that she will be at Helm's Deep, but really what other way is there to get her into the movie.

Maybe it does transform her character, but she is the only representation of a female Elf we see (aside from Galadriel who is a High Elf), and audience who is unfamiliar with Tolkien needs to see the tough side of a female elf. She is to be of a likeness to Luthien, and, if you remember, back in Sil, she went out and had to save Beren from Sauron's captivity in the time of Morgoth. Maybe PJ just wants Arwen to show the tough side of the female elves.

We will also be seeing one more major change in the next movie, the death of Saruman at Orthanc and the loss of The Scouring of the Shire will be a tough one to take... but that discussion is taking place elsewhere:

Scouring of the Shire? Out?
 
Last edited:

7doubles

Silver Star Tobaco Co.
Joined
Feb 7, 2002
Messages
453
Reaction score
0
Location
"Sin~City"
helms deep was a canser on gaul also it protected the cortex of freedom. from my standpoint it sgnified mans adaptation towards the towers of good and evil over personal anbition.
 

Thorin

LOTR Purist to the end
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
15
Re: Re: Re: Re: Helms Deep pics rant

Originally posted by Mithrandir_II
Maybe it does transform her character, but she is the only representation of a female Elf we see (aside from Galadriel who is a High Elf), and audience who is unfamiliar with Tolkien needs to see the tough side of a female elf. She is to be of a likeness to Luthien, and, if you remember, back in Sil, she went out and had to save Beren from Sauron's captivity in the time of Morgoth. Maybe PJ just wants Arwen to show the tough side of the female elves.
I don't fully understand this rationalization of Arwen from the perspective of the "audience who is unfamiliar to Tolkien." What needs to happen with the "audience" is familiarize them with the Tolkien truth....

FACT: The "ignorant" audience has no idea who Luthien is, hence the argument of "the spirit of Luthien" in Arwen has no bearing from the audience's perspective in justifying PJ's Arwen.

FACT: The "ignorant" audience has no clue that PJ has distorted Tolkien's Arwen. As far as they are concerned, she is doing all that PJ has her doing.

Conclusion: The audience has nothing to do with the logic stretching justifications of Luthien and every other Tolkien character who is rarely (or never) mentioned in LoTR, the book the movie is supposed to be based on. Those references are for Tolkien fans who try their hardest to reconcile PJ with Tolkien (at Tolkien's expense) rather than admit that PJ went a ways off the mark. The changes that PJ has done have nothing to do with the "audience who is unfamiliar to Tolkien" because they have no clue about it one way or the other.
 

7doubles

Silver Star Tobaco Co.
Joined
Feb 7, 2002
Messages
453
Reaction score
0
Location
"Sin~City"
i agree beran and tinuvial onl petain to weathertop an simeril as a conpairison to the ring.
 

Ged

Retired
Joined
Jan 19, 2002
Messages
151
Reaction score
0
Location
North West of England
Thorin,
You say:
The "ignorant" audience has no clue that PJ has distorted Tolkien's Arwen

The fact is, you know, that none of us really knows what sort of person Arwen was. There just isn't enough information in the books to say whether she was a Luthien-type or a stay-at-home-with-the-knitting type. My feeling is that she was somewhere in between. She is the grand-daughter of Galadriel, and Galadriel is no shrinking violet!

Also, it seems to have become accepted in these threads to keep saying that PJ turned Arwen into some sort of warrior-princess in FoTR. He did nothing of the sort. She carried a sword (wouldn't you if you were riding out into ME on your own?) and was fast on a horse. I have no problems with her being proficient on a horse, as I suspect all elves would be. She is 3000 years old after all! Are you sugesting she didn't know how to ride a horse?

So what you are left with is a change in role for her (not replacing Glorfindel, she is NOT a warrior) not necessarily a change in character.
 

Thread suggestions

Top