Why wasn't Glorfindel included in the Lord of the Rings films?

[jlday]

My sister and I are sooo ticked off that Glorfindel wasn't in the movie. He saved
Frodo! Not Arwen!

Whoever agrees with me please reply!

 

[Gandalf White]

Welcome to the Forum, jlday!!!

I'm sure you'll find several people who support your opinion, as it has been discussed at length before. I for one could really care less about it. I hate Arwen's "if you want him come and claim him" bit, but other than that it's fine by me.

Arwen was being brought as a prominent figure, necessary because of her marriage to Aragorn at the end of RotK. What better way to introduce her, rather than throw another character in for one scene, then discard him?

I hope you enjoy the Forums!!!

 

[jlday]

I probably sound a little serious about
the whole Glorfindel instead of Arwen thing, but I really LOVE Glorfindel. I'm
o.k with Arwen, she's a great character
but I wish Glorfindel would've gotten a
little part in the movie.

p.s.- Gandalf White, thanks 4 the welcome!

 

[Gandalf White]

Originally posted by jlday
I probably sound a little serious about
the whole Glorfindel instead of Arwen thing, but I really LOVE Glorfindel. I'm
o.k with Arwen, she's a great character
but I wish Glorfindel would've gotten a
little part in the movie.

I know what you mean. Perhaps maybe a passing reference or something. That would have been nice.

 

[Jamie Baggins]

I was actually very disappointed with some of the changes they made throughout the movies, subtle though some may be. The novels have been around for a long time, and if you are going to take a classic such as this and turn it into a long movie they should have paid better attention.

It might sound petty, but they should have considered the Tolkien fans. Like in the book the Ring Bearer didn't make the choice to go through the mines, Gandalf did. I don't know why they saw the need to make changes like that. Although the visualization of the movie is excellent, to me they failed when it comes to the story. Same with the Two Towers.

 

[Lord Gil-galad]

Accually, they had lots of Tolkien expert help them create the script, first, they iincluded Arwen instead of Glorfindel becuase, as Gandalf White said, they needed to make her more of a promonent main character, in the book all it says about arwen in Fotr is something like: "Arwen looks down the table and smiles at Frodo" something like that.. ^_^.....

And I think they did consider Tolkien fans, but I think they more heavily judged it on making a sucessful movie, they might make some changes that would please the tolkien odsessed fan, but then, they might have it make the average movie goer dislike it. When it comes to book to movie interperatation the difficult choice comes to please the fan of the classic, or please the average movie goer. Somethings, likeShelob at the end of TTT had to be moved to RotK to make a better movie, or else they'd have Climax scene ofter Climax scene after anotherCimax scene, this way, they get suspense going into RotK, and a big bang of an opener to the movie.... So yeah.... all changes have some logical movie reasoning behind it... even though it does make me mad on the inside, it makes sense when you think about it...

 

[Valdarmyr]

As Lord Gil-galad said, PJ and the screenwriters had Arwen carry Frodo to Rivendell to establish her character and give her more screen time. I believe another reason was to speed up the action. It would've taken extra time to introduce Glorfindel. In the book, there are several paragraphs of dialogue between him and Aragorn--Frodo's even well enough to speak with Glorfindel--and at least 10 days goes by between the encounter at Weathertop and the meeting with Glorfindel. While the book's characters are beloved, I believe PJ and the screenwriters were right to maintain the pacing by going pretty much straight from Weathertop to introducing Arwen, even though some of her words and actions may not have been "by the book." You just can't have a 5 or 6-hour movie, so you have to delete some things and shift some things around.

So much of what's in the films are trade-offs, to give the main characters more screen time, to include Tolkien's words even if a different character says them, to eliminate some scenes to keep the momentum going, and as Lord Gil-galad said, to strike a balance between what Tolkien fans like to see and what might work best for moviegoers not familiar with the book.

I'm actually amazed at how well the films followed the book, given the fact that the book is such a long one and filled with multiple adventures and characters. But I agree that TTT would've been better if PJ and the other screenwriters had gone by the book in most places. Still, TTT is one of my favorite films.

 

[faramir1127]

Glorfindel's introduction would have made things WAY too confusing to the average movie-goer. Also, nearly everyone who worked on the LOTR films are HUGE Tolkien fans themselves (by their own admission), but they had to take into consideration what was needed to make successful movies rather than just simply taking the books and turning them into scripts (which, BTW, would have been nearly impossible and would have resulted in one of two things:
1] A huge, unfilmable mess
2] Movies that were six or seven hours long EACH). All of the changes made to the stories of the various films were done for reasons of either pacing, storytelling, or attempts to give characters larger parts than they had in the books (this is especially true in the case of Arwen).

 

[Gandalf White]

Originally posted by faramir1127
Glorfindel's introduction would have made things WAY too confusing to the average movie-goer. Also, nearly everyone who worked on the LOTR films are HUGE Tolkien fans themselves (by their own admission), but they had to take into consideration what was needed to make successful movies rather than just simply taking the books and turning them into scripts (which, BTW, would have been nearly impossible and would have resulted in one of two things:
1] A huge, unfilmable mess
2] Movies that were six or seven hours long EACH). All of the changes made to the stories of the various films were done for reasons of either pacing, storytelling, or attempts to give characters larger parts than they had in the books (this is especially true in the case of Arwen).

First off, I really can't see nearly everyone who worked on LotR being huge Tolkien fans, one would think they would have swayed it closer to the books.

Dear Lord, please don't let MM or joxy find this post.

Many of the changes were unnecessary! Period. There is no denying it. You want a big example? Theoden. Give me one good reason why they changed his character to a manic-depressive old man, so willing to abandon Aragorn at every chance? Why? There simply is none.

Ahem, pardon the rant. Also, please don't mistake my true allegiance. I am a die-hard movie fan, but I admit there are changes, quite a few to the detriment of the films.

You can see my argument agreeing with the substitution of Arwen above.

Welcome to the Forums!

 

[Estella Bolger]

It bothers me that you can only see the Fellowship recieving their gifts in Lothlorien only if you buy the four disc DVD. I think it is an important part, but it still does not explain the magic of their cloaks. I think it may confuse people who just watch the film when Frodo covers himself and Sam with his cloak and they look like a rock.

 

[faramir1127]

Gandalf White, I don't know whether or not you've had the opportunity (or the inclination) to watch the Director/Writer/Producer Commentary for the FOTR Extended Edition or any of the documentaries that accompany the FOTR EE (particularly those contained on Disk #3), but I have (numerous times). That is how I know that almost all of those who worked on the film (including PJ, Phillipa, and Fran) are huge Tolkien fans.

Also, I don't personally see why the changes PJ and Co. have made in creating the LOTR films are such a big deal. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

P.S.: If you're miffed by the changes, do something about it besides complaining. Find an existing copy of the LOTR scripts and rewrite them (this is a suggestion to ANYONE who is pissed about the changes PJ and Co. have made).

 

[Gandalf White]

Gandalf White, I don't know whether or not you've had the opportunity (or the inclination) to watch the Director/Writer/Producer Commentary for the FOTR Extended Edition or any of the documentaries that accompany the FOTR EE (particularly those contained on Disk #3), but I have (numerous times). That is how I know that almost all of those who worked on the film (including PJ, Phillipa, and Fran) are huge Tolkien fans.

I've had both, actually. If they were die-hard they would have stayed closer to the book, especially TTT.

Also, I don't personally see why the changes PJ and Co. have made in creating the LOTR films are such a big deal. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

You miss my point. They are not a big deal (at least to me), but many are unnecessary, i.e. Theoden. And yes, it is a matter of perspective, to a certain extent.

 

[faramir1127]

Hmm. I disagree with you about the necessity of the changes. I also disagree with you about whether or not the changes Jackson and Co. chose to make means that they are not die-hard fans of the novels.

 

[Gandalf White]

Originally posted by faramir1127
Hmm. I disagree with you about the necessity of the changes. I also disagree with you about whether or not the changes Jackson and Co. chose to make means that they are not die-hard fans of the novels.

Ok, you disagree...now back up your position.

I have already given you a prime example of unnecessary change. Instead of having a noble Theoden, one who fully reverts from his doddering old self, we have a manic depressive. He is always fleeing and hiding, abandoning Aragorn, not once, but twice, and refusing to listen to the wisdom of Gandalf, the very one who set him free.

Why could we not have a noble and wise Theoden, like the one in the books, ready to charge the enemy? Instead we have one cowering behind his walls, waivering between extreme arrogance and downright depression.

As to the directors, etc., if they were such "die-hard" fans, they would not have slaughtered Theoden's character in such a manner.

Once again I will say this, please listen. I am not "opposed" to most of the changes and I agree with the necessity of many. However I do not let my love of the movie blind me to the fact that they could have been even better!

 

[faramir1127]

I cannot even pretend to know why Peter Jackson and Co. chose to portray Theoden as he did, but I can offer my own speculation. Consider this: Peter Jackson needed to create a story that would appeal both to the myriad of LOTR fans AND those who had never read the books before. Also, there were already a great deal of characters in the films who act as you describe the book Theoden as behaving. I believe that PJ chose to alter Theoden's character for just such a reason. Also, I don't see Theoden's actions as being evidence of him being a manic depressive. Instead, I see his actions as one of a king who realizes just how vulnerable his people are and who does not want to unnecessarily put them in danger. He is doing what he feels is the best course of action to keep his people free from further danger. However, he later realizes how wrong he was and that he'd put his people in more danger than they would have been otherwise.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by faramir1127
Consider this: Peter Jackson needed to create a story that would appeal both to the myriad of LOTR fans AND those who had never read the books before.

We've been asked many times before to consider this.
The answer is the same as ever: Tolkien already created a story that has appealed to countless millions who have read the books; there is absolutely no reason why HIS creation should not appeal equally well to the countless millions who came to the films without having read the books.
There was no NEED for PJ to "create" anything new. He had been given the privilege of using one of the greatest literary creations of the 20th century as his raw material; why wasn't he satisfied with the material that has satisfied, yes, countless millions?!

 

[Valdarmyr]

Originally posted by joxy
Tolkien already created a story that has appealed to countless millions who have read the books; there is absolutely no reason why HIS creation should not appeal equally well to the countless millions who came to the films without having read the books.
There was no NEED for PJ to "create" anything new.

joxy, I agree that an adaptation can--but not always--be best when it's translated directly from the original work, but when you have a work so massive as LOTR, some things, like the appearance in the book of Glorfindel, may need to go by the wayside to help things move along--even then you end up with a 3-hour movie!

Wouldn't you agree with me that it would've added to the length of the film to add Glorfindel? And adding more and more characters can get confusing. I think it was a good decision to have Arwen take his place in bringing Frodo to Rivendell. Just showing Arwen with Aragorn on the bridge at Rivendell would've seemed out of place without seeing her before. It was a sacrifice and a fusing of different story-threads the filmmakers made, and I for one agree with it.

Some criticize Tolkien for not having more female characters in his books and giving them more "page-time." Here's one way the filmmakers helped to fix that.

 

[faramir1127]

Originally posted by joxy
We've been asked many times before to consider this.
The answer is the same as ever: Tolkien already created a story that has appealed to countless millions who have read the books; there is absolutely no reason why HIS creation should not appeal equally well to the countless millions who came to the films without having read the books.
There was no NEED for PJ to "create" anything new. He had been given the privilege of using one of the greatest literary creations of the 20th century as his raw material; why wasn't he satisfied with the material that has satisfied, yes, countless millions?!

Actually, there ARE some very valid reasons why LOTR, if translated near-perfectly from the printed page to the big screen, would not have had the same appeal among people who had never read the novels. Some books work really well when transferred near-perfectly onto the big (or small) screen, while some things don't. LOTR is one of those things that wouldn't have worked. It is way, way too massive in its scope. Jackson needed to change/omit some things to create a story that could appeal to both the fans and non-fans. Also, you can't fairly compare Harry Potter to LOTR because HP is not nearly as massive in scope and construction as LOTR, which means that it is much easier for the HP novels to be translated near-perfectly onto the big screen.

 

[Gandalf White]

I have to go to bed, so I can't go into full detail right now.

"PJ had enough brave good guys, so another wouldn't look good" just doesn't hold water. Theoden has problems, not mainly because he is changed, but because he is illogical, and an extreme jerk. Gandalf saves him and his kingdom, yet he pays him absolutely no heed, arrogantly setting his own path. '

He heads to Helm's Deep, where he shows how hopeless he is, then for some reason sneeringly asks Saruman if "that's all he's got" as 10,000 orcs charge him.

And if all this wasn't enough, he is incredibly arrogant to Aragorn in his hall, leaves him for dead after the warg battle, and shuts the gate on him, leaving Aragorn and Gimli to their doom against thousands of orcs.

If you think moviegoers would be "turned off" by a noble Theoden, think again.

Oh dear, I'm starting to sound like a purist! And arguing on the same side as joxy....horrors! Just to clarify, Theoden was the biggest problem of TTT, everything else was wonderful! (Take that, joxy!)

 

[Freawine]

Agreed!

Being an adaptation one has to expect that there will be changes: the notion itself of adapting something implies that there must be contractions and modifications. Of course, such principle does not mean that every change produced is justifiable: some naturally are, others are not, which is something PJ seems to have some trouble getting at.

A good adaptation should, I think, keep the original personality of the characters. Yes, minor ones may have to go and be assimilated by more important, but which is taken by which should require consideration: for instance, to put a peaceful character doing the role of a more like warrior one is not exactly good work. And that's what one has with Arwen: bad adapting work!

Sure, they needed to increase her part, so far so good. But how does that justifiy anything, even a change on the character's personality? More scenes with Arwen and Aragorn in Rivendell would do it, a Xena is hardly necessary...unless one is trying to make a more comercial movie, at the expense of a higher quality.

To be honest, PJ is an idiot (in the original sense of the word): he has a lot of ideas - too many, I would add - and seems unable to get a hold of himself, so they keep coming and he keeps adding, even if it means to contradict Tolkien's mythology or even the movies themselves (like having elves at Helm's Deep). He's quite a Monty Python's Leonardo da Vinci: in charge of painting the last supper, he finds himself in the right to do whatever changes he whishes (and anyone who doesn't like it may paint it's own), even if that means to deviate a lot from the original scene. So the painting ends up with 24 apostles (or was it more?), 3 Jesus and one kanguru: it was, afterall, the last supper, so it might as well be one heck of a party; Lord of the Rings is a movie, so the guy finds himself in the right to deviate as much as he wants from the original, as if all changes would be justifiable by the simple fact that one thing is a book, another a movie.

In the name of what does PJ finds himself in the right to change a story that it's not his just because he thinks he should or had an idea he considers to be good - even if it proves to be a contradition - is a question yet to answer. I keep thinking of Christopher Lee's words in the commented version of the Fellowship of the Ring: the title of the movies does not say PJ's Lord of the Rings, he said, showing that it's not a personal work of the director. It seems like he acts as it was his own personal realm to me! Or maybe he lacks the ability to control himself as, unlike during most of his carrier, he now has millions of dollars at his disposal.