a humble suggestion

[aragil]

Originally posted by joxy
We've detailed the "fault" many times; the ride doesn't make sense in any terms.

I beg to differ, both with the notion that you've detailed any fault and with the idea that the film version makes no sense. The only 'fault' I've seen raised is MM's assertion that Aragorn should have gone as the better fighter. This doesn't really hold up, as Parrot has shown that all available information said the Nazgul where behind the Hobbits, not in front of them. Speed is then paramount, and we are told that Arwen is the faster rider (yes MM, speed of the horse is affected by the rider- when was the last time a guest jockey won the Kentucky Derby?). The distance was not overly-great (from what we can estimate), nor was the duration of the ride overly-long. In fact, I have posted a link to where real world horses accomplished similar rides- so again, what is the problem?

Originally posted by joxy
There is a perfectly common, though relatively modern combination word, "warrior-princess", derived, I believe, from a television series, which will soon, no doubt, make an appearance
in its own right in the OED, and which is very appropriate as a description of PJ's idea of Arwen.

The term works perfectly for the television series (Xena, Warrior Princess) because the heroine is both a princess and a warrior (she goes around fighting in every episode). PJ never has Arwen fight, or do anything remotely warrior-like (unless running away from wraiths on horseback is now our definition of martial spirit). People here apparently use the term in a derogatory sense to refer to movie Arwen when they have no legitimate gripe. I would love to see an honest defense for applying this term to Arwen in the movie- I've already given ye olde OED definitions and explained why I don't think the terms fit.

Originally posted by joxy
Many HAVE seen ROTK, but I was talking about a fact that C Lee has made perfectly clear: that almost all of his part was omitted from the film, at less than a month's notice.

That Chris Lee complains about it on his web site has no bearing to whether it is a spoiler on this one. It was a spoiler to me until you typed it out a few weeks ago. I'm just saying that spoiler warnings when discussing events in a movie that many people have not seen would be appreciated. Thank you for the consideration.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by aragil
I beg to differ, both with the notion that you've detailed any fault and with the idea that the film version makes no sense.
PJ never has Arwen fight, or do anything remotely warrior-like....
That Chris Lee complains about it on his web site has no bearing to whether it is a spoiler on this one.

Arwen's ride arose very early in the FOTR discussions, and it's quite understandable that you missed the details of those at the time, though they do get repeated intermittently all the time.
It all ties up with PJ's unaccountable decision to multiply Tolkien's one "long straight mile" to a distance that, in many people's view of the films, occupies much more than your six hours.
From that arose the variety of points that go to make up the claim that it makes no sense.

Arwen's first appearance has Aragorn at the point of her sword; that, and her appearance, are enough to justify the application of the colloquial expression "warrior-princess" to her. It IS an expression - the dictionary definitions of the two words that it contains are no longer specifically relevant to it, as a combination. If more justification is needed, Liv provides it herself: she read the description, quite probably in this forum, recognised its accuracy, and understood, accepted, and expressed sympathy with, the objections to that characterisation.

The news about C Lee was generally known; I happened to see it first on his web site because I don't read newspapers, or watch TV News programmes, regularly. I am sorry my report hit you as a spoiler, but I'm pretty sure you would have come across the news before long anyway.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Re: "Faster Riders". A rider might be "lighter" or "heavier" or "smarter" or "stupider" or "better" or "worse" but he/she cannot be "faster" unless you are talking about who reaches the horse first. Of course the weight of the rider will influence not only the speed but the endurance of the horse (unless, of course, it is Shadowfax). But Aragorn is hardly a cave troll and I doubt very much that the small difference (relatively) in the weight of the two riders was going to make all that much difference to the horse!

As far as where the Nazgul were at the time: I said it before and I'll say it again - even if a surety could be made that five of them are BEHIND you, that still leaves FOUR Riders that could possibly be IN FRONT of you! Given the terrible nature of the enemy and the extreme importance of keeping the Bearer and his burden out of their hands, whom would you rather carry the Bearer to safety?? I don't know about your (or Mr. Jackson), but I at least, would prefer the guy with the big sword, not the gal with the big mouth!

 

[Parrot]

Originally posted by joxy
Arwen's ride arose very early in the FOTR discussions, and it's quite understandable that you missed the details of those at the time, though they do get repeated intermittently all the time.
It all ties up with PJ's unaccountable decision to multiply Tolkien's one "long straight mile" to a distance that, in many people's view of the films, occupies much more than your six hours.
From that arose the variety of points that go to make up the claim that it makes no sense.

They may go to make up the claim, but they in no way proved the case. Which point went uncontested?

Again, the only known whereabouts of ANY of any of the Nazgul is behind them.

Their best hope is flight, NOT fight. Arwen is the lighter, faster, rider.

Arwen has the unique ability to conjure a protective flood once they cross the Bruinen.

Arwen was the logical choice.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Parrot
They may go to make up the claim, but they in no way proved the case. Which point went uncontested?

Again, the only known whereabouts of ANY of any of the Nazgul is behind them.

Their best hope is flight, NOT fight. Arwen is the lighter, faster, rider.

Arwen has the unique ability to conjure a protective flood once they cross the Bruinen.

Arwen was the logical choice.

There is no doubt that the better choice was "flight" since the Nazgul could not be destroyed or even wounded. But the company was still forced to "fight" on Weathertop and there was no guarantee that whomever took the Bearer to the fords wouldn't have to do so again. In that case, the small amount of difference that Aragorn's greater weight would have made to the horse pales into insignificance when put against his greater hope of fending off any Riders that were in front of them.

Unless, of course, we are willing to accept that Jackson has presented Arwen as every bit as good a "warrior" (never mind rider) as Aragorn. If that is what is being said here, then certainly, she is the better choice. But if in fact, that is what is being said, then I have an even bigger problem with the scene since it means that either Aragorn is a second rate warrior or Arwen is so great a fighter than she - and not Aragorn or Legolas or anyone else should have taken the Bearer to Mordor! Either way, the whole scenario turns me off completely.

 

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Re: "Faster Riders". A rider might be "lighter" or "heavier" or "smarter" or "stupider" or "better" or "worse" but he/she cannot be "faster" unless you are talking about who reaches the horse first.

Patently false. Riding a horse at speed requires technique and confidence, totally independent of size. A person assuredly can be a "faster" rider.

 

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
There is no doubt that the better choice was "flight" since the Nazgul could not be destroyed or even wounded. But the company was still forced to "fight" on Weathertop and there was no guarantee that whomever took the Bearer to the fords wouldn't have to do so again. In that case, the small amount of difference that Aragorn's greater weight would have made to the horse pales into insignificance when put against his greater hope of fending off any Riders that were in front of them.

Unless, of course, we are willing to accept that Jackson has presented Arwen as every bit as good a "warrior" (never mind rider) as Aragorn. If that is what is being said here, then certainly, she is the better choice. But if in fact, that is what is being said, then I have an even bigger problem with the scene since it means that either Aragorn is a second rate warrior or Arwen is so great a fighter than she - and not Aragorn or Legolas or anyone else should have taken the Bearer to Mordor! Either way, the whole scenario turns me off completely.

Mrs. M., Again with the studious avoidance of ANY mention of the flood that ultimately saves the day?

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Parrot
Mrs. M., Again with the studious avoidance of ANY mention of the flood that ultimately saves the day?

The flood happens after the fords have been gained. Had Arwen rode into the real Nazgul instead of Mr. Jackson's rather dull witted ones, the flood would have accomplished nothing because long before the Bearer would have been borne away by the four Nazgul (or the nine!) which intercepted the unconscious Bearer and his less than stalwart protectress.

It is the River that indeed defeated the Nazgul at the end, but the way Mr. Jackson arranged the trip, it would have been better had Frodo been carried to the ford by Aragorn and not Arwen. In making that particular choice, he diminished Aragorn and made a spectacle of Arwen whom he later chose to "reduce" in importance. Had he made her Frodo's temporary healer (without the knife to the throat) and the person who brought Aragorn the means by which to carry Frodo to safety (the elf horse), then the lady would have been "just right" given the film's combination of Arwen/Glorfindel.

As it turned out, Mr. Jackson went to all that trouble to make Arwen a warrior and then turned around in the second film and changed his mind, making her all dewy-eyed and sorrowful without a sword in sight. He didn't seem to be able to make up his mind which character he wanted - and so he achieved a mish-mash of strong and weak, warrior and dutiful daughter/lover. He himself in the extras in TTT admitted that he started her one way and changed his mind, which goes to show that my comments regarding that "change of heart" is not "opinion" but fact.

 

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
As it turned out, Mr. Jackson went to all that trouble to make Arwen a warrior and then turned around in the second film and changed his mind, making her all dewy-eyed and sorrowful without a sword in sight. He didn't seem to be able to make up his mind which character he wanted - and so he achieved a mish-mash of strong and weak, warrior and dutiful daughter/lover. He himself in the extras in TTT admitted that he started her one way and changed his mind, which goes to show that my comments regarding that "change of heart" is not "opinion" but fact.

Changed his MIND?!??!? GADZOOKS! I had no idea.

You realize, if we held Tolkien to this same no mind changing allowed standard, your precious Strider would be a hobbit with a nasty case of the trots, right?

GB trying different things.

 

[aragil]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
As it turned out, Mr. Jackson went to all that trouble to make Arwen a warrior and then turned around in the second film and changed his mind, making her all dewy-eyed and sorrowful without a sword in sight. He didn't seem to be able to make up his mind which character he wanted - and so he achieved a mish-mash of strong and weak, warrior and dutiful daughter/lover. He himself in the extras in TTT admitted that he started her one way and changed his mind, which goes to show that my comments regarding that "change of heart" is not "opinion" but fact.

That PJ changed his mind while shooting is indeed fact. That Arwen was a mish-mash of a character in the final product is your opinion. She does put the sword to Aragorn's throat, but this is just stupid- it is not warrior-like, and it certainly isn't brave or strong. Other than this nobody seems to be able to give a reason for thinking of Arwen as a warrior. The logical conclusion would be that she was not a warrior in FotR, and she remained 'not a warrior' in TT. There just isn't as much of a mish-mash as people would like to think.

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
The flood happens after the fords have been gained. Had Arwen rode into the real Nazgul instead of Mr. Jackson's rather dull witted ones, the flood would have accomplished nothing because long before the Bearer would have been borne away by the four Nazgul (or the nine!) which intercepted the unconscious Bearer and his less than stalwart protectress.

It is the River that indeed defeated the Nazgul at the end, but the way Mr. Jackson arranged the trip, it would have been better had Frodo been carried to the ford by Aragorn and not Arwen. In making that particular choice, he diminished Aragorn and made a spectacle of Arwen whom he later chose to "reduce" in importance. Had he made her Frodo's temporary healer (without the knife to the throat) and the person who brought Aragorn the means by which to carry Frodo to safety (the elf horse), then the lady would have been "just right" given the film's combination of Arwen/Glorfindel.

I've heard of Monday-morning quarterbacking, but this is ridiculous. First of all, who are the real Nazgul?

book excerpt showing the einsteinian intelligence of the 'real' Nazgul:
The advice of Gandalf seemed absurd. Bilbo had used the Ring. ‘And I am still in the Shire,’ he thought, as his hand touched the chain on which it hung. At that moment the rider sat up, and shook the reins. The horse stepped forward, walking slowly at first, and then breaking into a quick trot.

Yes, good thing that Arwen didn't run into those Nazgul! The poor audience would have dozed off out of sheer boredom!
And what grounds do you have to say that Aragorn would have been a better choice? THe facts of the movie are the facts of the movie- the event proved that Arwen was a good enough rider (barely!) to get to the ford. The movie also says Aragorn is a somewhat poorer rider. Given the narrowness of Arwen's escape, Aragorn would have almost assuredly been caught, and had to fight his way through nine Nazgul, bearing an unconscious hobbit under one arm the whole time!! What sort of logic makes this a better option than having the 'faster rider' take Frodo to the fords??!!

Originally posted by Parrot
Changed his MIND?!??!? GADZOOKS! I had no idea.

You realize, if we held Tolkien to this same no mind changing allowed standard, your precious Strider would be a hobbit, right?

LOL!! That's "precious Trotter"!

 

[Parrot]

Originally posted by aragil
LOL!! That's "precious Trotter"!

You grabbed it before I could edit!

 

[jallan]

Aragil posted:

Given the narrowness of Arwen's escape, Aragorn would have almost assuredly been caught, and had to fight his way through nine Nazgul, bearing an unconscious hobbit under one arm the whole time!!

But the supposed narrowness of Arwen’s escape was unrealistic cinema.

Have you ever seen a horse race?

I’ve never seen one where apparently all the horses run almost exactly at the same speed all the time and continue to run exactly at the same speed. They start to string out, though one’s with more endurance then begin to gain on others who may have greater initial speed.

They do not clump as in the film,

Then Arwen stops, in the middle of the stream, whereupon the Riders also stop. Dumb!

What was I supposed to understand from that?

Well, I suppose if I were a learned Tolkien fan I might guess that Jackson is following an idea Tolkien used in one outline published in Unfinished Tales in which the Nazgûl fear running water (a motif taken from genuine folklore about evil spirits).

But even given that Jackson was following this (but forgetting to clue in the audience who could hardly be expected to know that) the previous scenes were less convincing than horse chases in most B-westerns.

 

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

I really enjoyed the horse chase, it was very tense, and coreographed well. Good shots, I must say.

Who the heck cares about the nitty gritty? It's enjoyable to watch for us commoners.

 

[aragil]

Originally posted by jallan
Aragil posted:But the supposed narrowness of Arwen’s escape was unrealistic cinema.
Have you ever seen a horse race?
I’ve never seen one where apparently all the horses run almost exactly at the same speed all the time and continue to run exactly at the same speed. They start to string out, though one’s with more endurance then begin to gain on others who may have greater initial speed.
They do not clump as in the film,

Given where I am from in Montana and where you are from in Canada, I'm guessing that yes, I am more familiar with horses than you. This was not a horse race on a track- this was nine nazgul riding 'offroad' in pseudo-military fashion trying to track down a single rider who was not only on a faster horse, but who was also clearly a more skilled rider. The nine ride together- they have strength in numbers and an ability to maneuver in formation. They eventually catch Arwen, and if it weren't for her skill at riding, then their 'clumping' together (in phalanx formation!) would have brought about the ascendency of Sauron in Middle-earth!

Originally posted by jallan
Then Arwen stops, in the middle of the stream, whereupon the Riders also stop. Dumb!
What was I supposed to understand from that?
Well, I suppose if I were a learned Tolkien fan I might guess that Jackson is following an idea Tolkien used in one outline published in Unfinished Tales in which the Nazgûl fear running water (a motif taken from genuine folklore about evil spirits).
But even given that Jackson was following this (but forgetting to clue in the audience who could hardly be expected to know that) the previous scenes were less convincing than horse chases in most B-westerns.

Most people that watched the film recalled the Buckleberry ferry sequence where the Nazgul pulled up from full gallop in order to avoid touching water. If that didn't clue in the audience to Nazgul hydrophobia, than I don't know what would. Incidentally, Nazgul stopping at the bank was another book item- it would surprise me if you didn't know this:

from 'Flight to the Ford':
But the pursuers were close behind. At the top of the bank the horse halted and turned about neighing fiercely. There were Nine Riders at the water's edge below, and Frodo's spirit quailed before the threat of their uplifted faces. ...
Suddenly the foremost Rider spurred his horse forward. It checked at the water and reared up. ...
'The Ring! The Ring!' they cried with deadly voices; and immediately their leader urged his horse forward into the water, followed closely by two others.

An idea from Tolkien, and nothing so unbelievable as a B-western horse chase. What is to complain about?

 

[jallan]

Aragil posted:

This was not a horse race on a track- this was nine nazgul riding 'offroad' in pseudo-military fashion trying to track down a single rider who was not only on a faster horse, but who was also clearly a more skilled rider. The nine ride together- they have strength in numbers and an ability to maneuver in formation.

Bogus.

You are actually saying that the nine Nazgûl horses purposely stayed in line with the slowest one to try to catch a faster horse?

Bogus.

Why not let the fastest horses ride ahead and surround her? Four ahead and five behind would be strength in numbers. It almost looked like they were trying hard not to catch Arwen.

Nor is it clear that Arwen is on a faster horse. Since the Riders in most of the scenes are lined up directly behind her or almost even with her and she isn’t able to pull away from them it appears Asfaloth was actually no faster than the slowest of the Nazgûl steeds, assuming you are right and the Nazgûl are purposely holding their steeds in line together.

They eventually catch Arwen, and if it weren't for her skill at riding, then their 'clumping' together (in phalanx formation!) would have brought about the ascendency of Sauron in Middle-earth!

They don’t catch Arwen.

Most people that watched the film recalled the Buckleberry ferry sequence where the Nazgul pulled up from full gallop in order to avoid touching water. If that didn't clue in the audience to Nazgul hydrophobia, than I don't know what would.

A statement from Aragorn that the Nazgûl fear running water. Of course, that fear only appears in one suppositious essay by Tolkien (text B of texts A, B, C and D alone introduces this idea) to which Jackson didn’t have the rights so I can see a probable difficulty in making the fear of water explicit. Also, at Buickleberry Ferry in the film I saw the horse pulled up, likely as not, because it was too far a jump to the ferry and a horse floundering in water of unknown depth in current of unknown strength might be something to avoid.

Incidentally, Nazgul stopping at the bank was another book item- it would surprise me if you didn't know this.

In the book it is not clear what delays the Riders after Asfaloth barely excapes being headed off from entering the Ford. Tolkien doesn’t explain more than what Frodo sees when Asfaloth turns back after crossing the Ford. An edginess on the part of the horses to enter unknown waters is a reasonable guess for the delay as Frodo does see:

Suddenly the foremost Rider spurred his horse forward. It checked at the water and reared up.

The Riders then attempt to summon Frodo and the leader, now half way across the Ford, blasts Frodo and he falls from his steed.

In the film we see nothing like this.

In the film the Nazgûl reign in their horses for no obvious reason exactly when Arwen reigns in hers for no obvious reason.

Dumb!

I doubt anyone but a few people in the audience who have read Unfinished Tales and remember the essay are thinking hydrophobia on the part of the Riders. I’m not convinced Jackson was thinking hydropobia on the part of the Riders.

The chase did not impress me, especially the jump cutting suggesting attempts to get something on screen from unconnected shots. Nothing flowed.

Mediocre cinematography.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Horses will enter water, but they are not all that comfortable when they cannot see where they are putting their feet. Remember, horses see things greatly enlarged. That is why they may bolt when a piece of paper flutters in front of them. They see a bedsheet, not a small scrap.

The Riders won't willingly go into deep water. Their clothing gives them shape. Indeed, when they lose it in the flood, Gandalf mentions that they have to return to their master in Mordor "shapeless" and, obviously, impotent as the Fellowship is not bothered by them again until they return "clothed" and mounted.

Thus, the Rider is not about to swim the Brandywine if he can help it even if the horse can accomplish the task. On the other hand, the horses won't willingly enter the Bruinen - a fast running river with perhaps treacherous footing - unless they are forced to do so by their riders. I don't think any type of special fear involving water is the problem here. The Riders, unlike vampires, can cross running water. After all, both they and their mounts certainly at one point or another had to do so to get from Mordor to the Shire!

 

[aragil]

Originally posted by jallan
Bogus.
Bogus.
Dumb!
I doubt anyone but a few people in the audience who have read Unfinished Tales and remember the essay are thinking hydrophobia on the part of the Riders. I’m not convinced Jackson was thinking hydropobia on the part of the Riders.
The chase did not impress me, especially the jump cutting suggesting attempts to get something on screen from unconnected shots. Nothing flowed.
Mediocre cinematography.

Well, if you don't like it then just say so. So far you're the only person I've seen complain about the cinematics of the horse chase (and I just watched it with two ranch kids!). I guess the rest of us must be pretty dim to not question such obviously inferior quality. Apparently the horse trainers on the movie were too dim to question the scene as well, or perhaps they just know less about horses than you do. Ever considered consultation work?

 

[Starflower]

can we keep things cool here please... this is supposed to be discussion between reasonable people after all...

jallan has a valid point though, Tolkien does mention that the Riders would not cross running water, and at the Ford " would not have done so now either, if it wasn't for the Ring directly in front of them". This does not get across very clearly in the movie in my opinion either, the Riders' horses don't seem to be sufficiently reluctant to enter the river...

 

[jallan]

Aragil posted:

I guess the rest of us must be pretty dim to not question such obviously inferior quality.

If you can answer my reasoning, then do so.

There is often a great deal of uncritical and unthinking acceptance of what is seen on the screen (and I am far from guiltless in that).

I don’t understand your argument that to catch a fast rider one should bunch up and follow with the speed of one’s slowest horse.

Of course one can follow after a much faster horse as best one can in hopes the chased horse will stumble or that the horse will run out of stamina or that something else may happen.

Mrs. Maggott posted:

Horses will enter water, but they are not all that comfortable when they cannot see where they are putting their feet. Remember, horses see things greatly enlarged. That is why they may bolt when a piece of paper flutters in front of them. They see a bedsheet, not a small scrap.

Yes.

Horses of course float in water easily. But they are not particularly built for swimming.

Once in a deep river, being swept by the current, it is often impossible for the horse to get back onto land again. Even if it reaches a bank it may prove impossible for it to climb out.

Attempting to swim the Brandywine or any large river on horseback would have been foolhardy.

Starflower posted:

jallan has a valid point though, Tolkien does mention that the Riders would not cross running water, and at the Ford " would not have done so now either, if it wasn't for the Ring directly in front of them".

Note, as I indicated earlier, the idea that the Nazgûl were hindered by Running Water may not be Tolkien’s final thoughts on the matter.

There is no hint that the Nazgûl fear water in the text of The Lord of the Rings itself. The idea only arises in one later essay, apparently intended to be used in the Appendices but like much else omitted for lack of space.

But Tolkien himself admitted in a note that the idea was hard to maintain. It seems likely enough (though not provable) that this idea occurred later as a second thought which probably could be fitted in, though with some difficulty as Tolkien himself admitted.

Personally, I think it a good idea.

 

[Ol'gaffer]

Nor is it clear that Arwen is on a faster horse. Since the Riders in most of the scenes are lined up directly behind her or almost even with her and she isn’t able to pull away from them it appears Asfaloth was actually no faster than the slowest of the Nazgûl steeds, assuming you are right and the Nazgûl are purposely holding their steeds in line together.

The nazgul are riding in a charging phalanx formation, meant for hunting down their target.

They don’t catch Arwen.

The catch up with Arwen, but never catch her in that meaning. they get alongside with her and try to force her to stop or fall.

A statement from Aragorn that the Nazgûl fear running water. Of course, that fear only appears in one suppositious essay by Tolkien (text B of texts A, B, C and D alone introduces this idea) to which Jackson didn’t have the rights so I can see a probable difficulty in making the fear of water explicit.

Talking about movies here, not letters.

In the film we see nothing like this.
In the film the Nazgûl reign in their horses for no obvious reason exactly when Arwen reigns in hers for no obvious reason.
Dumb!

The nazgul stop before the water, Arwen stops to make sure that they are not following.

I doubt anyone but a few people in the audience who have read Unfinished Tales and remember the essay are thinking hydrophobia on the part of the Riders. I’m not convinced Jackson was thinking hydropobia on the part of the Riders.

Very possible.

The chase did not impress me, especially the jump cutting suggesting attempts to get something on screen from unconnected shots. Nothing flowed.
Mediocre cinematography.

It's obvious that you aren't a film maker or even know of that trade.

Cutting together a chase scene is the hardest thing to do, after battles that is, and this was cut very well. At times showing close ups of Arwen riding, at times far shots and wide shots to show the full picture and how close the riders are, this creates tension. Making the whole chase into one shot would not.