• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

Should they have given 🧝Arwen the extra scene?

Should they have given Arwen the extra scene?

  • Yes. They should have.

    Votes: 14 28.0%

  • No. They shouldn't have.

    Votes: 36 72.0%
  • Total voters
    50
I concur Harad except for her presence at the Fords which gives her a composite part of Frodo/Elrond/Gandalf which IMO cannot be justified. You defeat your own argument by endorsing that part of her portrayal. Had she merely been a composite of Glorfindel/Arwen, that would have been okay but PJ imbued a part of existing characters (Frodo, Elrond and Gandalf) to her. How do you justify that...enhancing one character to the detriment of others? Or do you just assert that Frodo and the others had enough character to pass around?

If so, then IMO your argument should be that as long as someone might have done something that another character in the movie could have done, that should be endorsed. Following further along that line of logic, we could have had Aragorn give in to his desire for the Ring, die protecting Merry and Pippin and had Boromir lead the Hunters after the Isengarders. That would actually make sense because, after all, Boromir is the rightful heir to the Stewardship of Gondor.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that is why this whole "spirit of Tolkien" argument is so flawed. There are alot of things that could have occured that would have been true to the "spirit of Tolkien" but absolutely unacceptable to the story and to the legion of fans that LoTR has accumulated in the 50+ years of it's existence.

When you start making such ludicrous changes and justifying it with feeble arguments, you open the door for many other ludicrous changes.

When you are making a movie on the book and are claiming to stick to the book, the spirit is not enough...Stick with the facts and reality of what the author did...Especially with an epic like LoTR that is considered the greatest book of the 20th century.
 
Choices by artists are just that. Whether you want to accept it or not is then your choice. JRRT wrote a book, great but imperfect. PJ made a movie, certainly with flaws in it. I liked it. Many others did as well. Its place in film history remains to be seen. I doubt very much you all were on the LOTR band wagon in 1960.

Lets concentrate on the issue that Grond complains about: Arwen is on the horse with Frodo.

In the book, Glorfindel drives the Nazgul into the river. In the movie, Arwen lures the Nazgul into the river. So that isnt the issue. What Grond (and I as mentioned before) would prefer is that Frodo would have defied the Nazgul, as in the book. So the real problem is not that Arwen has an extra scence--SHE ESSENTIALLY DOES WHAT GLORFINDEL DID--but that Frodo has lost his scene.

How does this alter the spirit, the plot, the character of JRRT.

Not to any significant amount, IMO. Certainly the action at the Ford of Bruinen is about the same and the results are exactly the same. I argue in other places that Frodo is shown to be brave in many places in the movie, and in fact on Amon Hen, is shown to be braver than in the book, since he escapes from the Big Red Eye without the help of Gandalf.

As far as Thorin's ridiculous suggestions, we can be thankful that he wasnt involved in making the movie.
 
And here I am again, stuck in between the Great Dwarf and the Great Easterner. I feel that your descriptions are also exaggerated Thorin. Ludicrous changes and feeble arguments are entirely too strong a portrayal of what has happened. For many, PJ's works are leading them to read the LotR for the first time and, after all, it is an interpretation of the work. I feel some things could have been done much, much better but I feel that most of the movie was portrayed very well.

And yes Thorin, I thought Pippin and Merry appeared to be buffoons but will cut PJ some slack until I see how he develops them later on. I'm sure he's going for creative character development here which will emphasize them at both extremes of the characterization... from buffoon to ultimate hero. We will just have to wait and see. Again I reiterate, as both a realist and a purist, the movie is a success in bringing Middle-earth to the screen; but, it could have been just as successful and still been truer to the book. After all, my main criticism is the Fords scene only. All of the rest could have been overcome by developing themes in the next two movies. Unfortunately, as I've said before, PJ's latest statements now lead me to believe that I will more disappointed with the TT and RotK than I was with FotR. I will wait and see though before I make judgement.
 
And, Harad, here you are on the other extreme. Arwen does much, much more than Glorfindel did. Glorfindel 1) provided a little healer relief, 2) he loaned Frodo his horse and 3) he "scared" the remaining bankbound Nazgul off the banks and into the flooding river. He did not 4) resurrect Frodo, he did not 5) carry Frodo on his horse, he did not 6) defy the Lord of the Nazgul in direct confrontation, he did not 7) call down the flood, and he did not 8) place riders on the crest of the waves. All of those things were done by other people. Let's see we have 1) Glorfindel, 2) Glorfindel, 3) Glorfindel, 4) no-one, 5) Frodo, 6) Frodo, 7) Elrond and 8) Gandalf.

Harad that seems to me to be a little more than you portray. It might even sound like a significant distortion of the characterizations of many characters. I could even say that Arwen's breathing life into a dying Hobbit might even be Messianic. Also, Thorin is entitled to his opinions and as I have chastised him for using strong descriptives for describing the changes in the books, I must chastise you for describing his opinions as ridiculous. After all, his opinions are shared by many on the forum and are ridiculous to you and not to them.
 

If PJ wanted to make Gandalf a cross-dresser and defend it by "artistic choice" or "director's interpretation" that is his perogative...That doesn't mean that it is right when comparing it to the standard that he claims to be following so faithfully: Tolkien's LoTR. Nor does that mean that he shouldn't be held responsible (after all his claims) to remain true to the characters as JRR wrote them....

As I've said for the umpteenth time...I could make ALOT of changes to LoTR and still keep it in the "spirit" of LoTR...That doesn't mean that it would be acceptable or right....Why should Arwen all of a sudden be so acceptable?

I, however, do not fully agree with Grond...I feel that Arwen does not belong there PERIOD and that it alters the character of JRRT drastically....
 
That doesn't mean that it is right when comparing it to the standard that he claims to be following so faithfully: Tolkien's LoTR.
Click to expand...

All your opinion. Unfortunately, it makes no sense: how can it be in the "spirit of JRRT," and also be wrong? That is a contradiction using any sensible meaning of "spirit of JRRT." Of course, you can, and do, twist the language in a feeble attempt to make a point.
 
Maybe you need to clarify how Arwen's role in PJs movie is in "the spirit of Tolkien". We don't know what Arwen could have done or if she would have done the things she did....The fact is, is that Tolkien shows us that she obviously didn't do the things she did in the movie...The obvious lack of character development in Tolkien's book shows what a minor character she is. Where in any of Tolkien's writings do you see support concerning Arwen for Arwen's actions in the movie? Luthien? Please. Luthien is not Arwen.


To me having PJ create scenes where Gandalf levitates, or fights with more magic would be in the spirit of his character...He could do those things and he is a wizard. Having an elven princess who does nothing in the book come in kicking the doors down and taking everybody's roles is not in the spirit of her character at all.

And Harad, you haven't commented on anything I have said concerning Arwen and the spirit of Tolkien in the last few posts...Despite the fact that you obviously have no respect for my opinions, I feel that I have raised some valid arguments over your "spirit" theory to explain such a distortion.

If I am wrong in interpreting "spirit", correct me and make a little bit more of an effort to give a better rebuttal to other's arguments then what you've given....I'd rather have a decent excuse for your views then sanctimonious drivel.
 
I have addressed this issue but you arent reading...you don't want to.

1. All the actions that the movie Arwen takes are in the book, albeit by other characters--except of course being Aragorn's betrothed. Not only are her actions in the "spirit" they are in the book directly.

2. It has already been proven that JRRT characters like the movie Arwen are in the Silmarillion and in LOTR. The "despised" Luthien is an Elf Maiden who uses magic to fight the Great Enemy. Eowyn is a contemporary maiden that fights with weapons. Therefore the movie idea that an Elf Maiden COULD do these actions is in the "spirit."

3.What's left? That the book Arwen doesnt do these things. Finally, thats what a composite character is all about. Take an existing character and combine actions of other characters that are thereby altered or left out entirely.

1 & 2 prove that the movie Arwen is in the "spirit." You don't like 3. That's YOUR choice.
 
Okay, like I thought, I fully understood what you meant by being in the "spirit"

No, you haven't addressed the issue...You still haven't addressed my argument about the numerous things I could do to the movie yet still stay within the boundaries of being "in the spirit of Tolkien"....Are you honestly telling me that PJ could do whatever he wanted to the characters and plot as long as it was in the spirit of Tolkien? I have a feeling that you'd be alone in that regard....That is why I am saying trying to justify the character distortion by using the spirit of Tolkien argument is flawed. You haven't addressed that at all....Apparently you don't want to see the point.

Was not the purpose of this movie to create a great rendition of Tolkien's LoTR? Do you not do that by staying true to the source? What is stopping PJ from practically changing the whole thing as long as he is staying "true to the spirit of Tolkien?" It's a wishy-washy justification because you can move so far from the written source and any Tolkien fan would find that unacceptable.....
 
Last edited:

Lets use Grond's example to try to define what would be 'in the spirit'. On one level this works in that, yes a man dies at Parth Galen, and the surviving man in the Fellowship leads the pursuit of the orcs. But on the other hand this would be a ludicrous change primarily because its central to the plot that Aragorn is crowned king after the defeat of Sauron. This alone invalidates this as a change.

What major plot change is enforced by Arwen's role? None at all. The story can proceed, with no alterations. It is completely free-standing.

I'd add some other tests.

Does it radically alter the nature / texture of Middle Earth? If so I don't see how.

Does it give to major characters actions that they would not have taken? Arwen is by no means a major character - her development is insignificant. So what she could or couldn't have done is impossible to say. Those who argue that the scene was wrong on this basis will need to work hard to prove it. (If you just don't like, fine, you're entitled to your opinion).

Does it significantly detract from the development of other characters? And here as I've repeatedly said I think there is more of a case - Frodo loses a big moment. Harad argues with some merit that his courage is and will be shown elsewhere. Not to my satisfaction, but I will concede his point that the real issue is in Frodo's portrayal overall. As for Elrond losing command of the river, or even better Gandalf losing responsibility for the white horses... please!

Those are the tests I'd apply. They are not specific to this scene so may be used elsewhere. I think they are clear and address the key issues: plot, nature of Middle-Earth, and characterisation. If you don't like them, I'd be interested to know why. If you think I've misapplied them, well that would be valid comment too.
 


The question, VofK is, where do we draw the line? Just because no major plot change is altered, that justifies distortion? What if Gandalf just levitated himself off of Orthanc? Better yet, what if he tried to levitate himself out of Moria but was pulled down by the Balrog? What if Merry and Pippin and Sam all traveled with Frodo to Bree from the Shire? What if Galadriel and Celeborn had personally waylayed the orcs coming from Moria? What if Butterbur was in league with Saruman and caused the ringwraiths to find the company at Bree? What if, what if, what if....All these things are in the spirit of LoTR and do not alter the plot or characters. I'm sure your mind can conjure up many more....Where does it stop before you ask yourself "Is this LoTR or my own interpretation?" You can't use the "spirit of Tolkien" as a valid excuse because it can justify any change.

The fact that Arwen is a MINOR character and not a major one tells me that your third point is mute...If a major character should not be taking actions they would not have taken, why should a minor character be not only doing that, but taking the roles of other major characters?

And yes, as you've pointed out, it does detract from other characters.
 

OK so lets try my tests on your possible changes, and see what results. This might take some time...

A. What if Gandalf just levitated himself off of Orthanc?
- What major plot change is enforced?
The difficulty with this is that then Gandalf does not get delayed at Isengard, because he can escape immediately. Hence he accompanies Frodo to Rivendell. (And yes the Balrog scene needs a change)
- Does it radically alter the nature / texture of Middle Earth?
Probably doesn't.
- Does it give to major characters actions that they would not have taken?
No
- Does it significantly detract from the development of other characters?
Only in that Saruman looks totally incompetent.
Overall - the plot device is a delay at Isengard. Making this change would materially alter the plot. This counts it out.

B. what if he tried to levitate himself out of Moria but was pulled down by the Balrog?
- What major plot change is enforced?
Doesn't change anything, although if you have this, you have the problems with A, if Gandalf can levitate/fly.
- Does it radically alter the nature / texture of Middle Earth?
No.
- Does it give to major characters actions that they would not have taken?
No.
- Does it significantly detract from the development of other characters?
No.
Overall, you could do this, were it not for the problem with the Isengard scene in A.

C. What if Merry and Pippin and Sam all traveled with Frodo to Bree from the Shire?

I thought they did?

D. What if Galadriel and Celeborn had personally waylayed the orcs coming from Moria?
- What major plot change is enforced?
None
- Does it radically alter the nature / texture of Middle Earth?
Probably not
- Does it give to major characters actions that they would not have taken?
It is unlikely that the Lord and Queen of Lorien would be on guard duty. Hefty hand-to-hand combat would have disturbed their dignified repose! Some sort of use of enchantment - still doesn't feel quite right. Galadriel is without doubt a major character. So as a change it would need to be very well handled to pull it off. Overall it doesn't seem a good idea.
- Does it significantly detract from the development of other characters?
I think we can live without Haldir.
Overall: this doesn't destroy the story, but would take some doing to pull it off satisfactorily, without a major dent in Galadriel's character.

E. What if Butterbur was in league with Saruman and caused the ringwraiths to find the company at Bree?
- What major plot change is enforced?
The ringwraith's finding the company at Bree is a major change. An escape scene could however be contrived, as there is an attack on the inn.
- Does it radically alter the nature / texture of Middle Earth?
I think I would argue that the Prancing Pony, as a defining part of Bree, constitutes a significant part of the texture of Middle Earth. For Saruman's agent to be running it would be a big twist.
- Does it give to major characters actions that they would not have taken?
Barliman a borderline character. Not really major, but more emblematic than either Arwen or Glorfindel as there are other representatives of Elfdom. This is close to the mark at least. I suppose this would constitute a composite of Barliman, Bill Ferny and the southerner
- Does it significantly detract from the development of other characters?
No not really.
Overall: this doesn't feel right at all. Its too close to the wire on too many counts. Its merit lies in bringing in the idea of spies and agents stalking Frodo's moves (which isn't in the film), but its a big twist to do it.

I think a further test might be required: How does the change help? (aka the So What? Test). In A,B and D nothing is gained by the change. In E you can bring in some additional plot features, but at too high a cost. In the case of Arwen, to me the additional space in the story for a strong female character does justify the loss of Glorfindel.

I'm sure I have given these changes far more consideration that you would. I expect you would dismiss them out of hand. I have decided I don't like them, for considered reasons. I feel certain that the sorts of questions I am asking are what a screen-writer working from an original text has to ask. Slavishly copying the book just is not an option.
 
Last edited:
VoK has pointed out the true test of "in the spirit" which you continue to mangle. The movie Arwen does not change the continuing plot or characters in the movie.

The diminuition of Gandalf by not creating the white horses, or Elrond by not being explicitly being behind the river rising are nit-picks. The loss to Frodo character in defying the Nazgul is more serious but still does not in any way alter the subsequent plot, and it is made up in other ways in his character development.

Any suggestion of yours, would have to be examined on its merits, like PJ's creations have been examined. For example, one could make a composite Bree character that had attributes of Butterbar and Ferny. This wasnt done.
 
So, what I'm hearing from you VofK and Harad is that:

1) Any change to Tolkien's LoTR, no matter how large or small is
acceptable providing that the spirit of Tolkien remains intact.

2) Any character can be manipulated, distorted and composed of
other characters as much as wanted, provided that it remains
in the spirit of Tolkien.

3) Because a character COULD do something, that justifies any
addition or subtraction from what Tolkien actually created
them to do.

I honestly can't see how anyone who holds any epic sacred would be happy agreeing with the above. The book came first. I would hope that anyone (other then the two of you) would hold it sacred enough to stay true to the story and characters then to go and fabricate, and distort and justify changes all the while claiming to be staying so true to the story....No, you are not. You are staying true "to the spirit of Tolkien." Big difference, boys.

I don't want a movie that "stays true to the spirit of Tolkien"..I want a movie that claims to be based on LoTR and pay homage to LoTR to give it more justice then you guys think it deserves. If PJ feels the way you guys do, we are in for a frightening TTT and RoTK.
 
I know its not what I said. I dont think its what VoK said either. Changes have to be judged on their merits. The movie needs to both condense the book and to clarify or bring out points that can't be done as well in that medium. Finally the movie is allowed to introduce elements as long as they adhere to principles, such as the ones VoK espoused.

So, little one, try reading for comprehension, one more time.
 
Thorin please behave. If you are hearing that you can't be listening. Not 'any change however large or small' - I've made pretty clear how I go about looking these things. Its quite irritating that you can't resist trying to put words in my mouth. It is pointless trying to explain my point of view to you if you prefer to ascribe views to me that I clearly don't hold. Either this is rhetorical device you are using to score points, or you are trying to fight a war against enemies that only exist in your mind.

Anyway I don't view Lord of the Rings as 'sacred' to use your term. Perhaps you understand now why I thought when you described the Arwen changes as 'blasphemy' I took the primary definition rather than the more obsure meaning (ie depreciatory remark). Your grasp of English is not hopeless: you know the way your words will be taken. Sacred, blasphemy, fabrication, etc etc. I view Lord of the Rings as a work of fiction. Can I check you don't actually believe anything else??
 
Sorry guys, but all your other posts have told me exactly that. You have not justified Arwen in any way except to futilely hold on to the "it is in the spirit of Tolkien" for your defenses....I and Grond have proven that this is a ludicrous argument....We obviously are looking at things from a different perspective so I think that we should just agree to disagree....You feel the change is justifiable, I do not....What more can we say.

And as for you Harad, oh stubborn and incorrible tiny one, what I will do is stop trying to beat my head up against the wall with you. You have been nothing but vague and inconsistent with your opinion on this Arwen matter and do nothing but frustrate those who you try to debate it with....

And no, it is not only me who feels this way about you, but apparently others have stopped trying to reason with your thick-headed self on this matter because they've obviously figured out that you have no leg to stand on and are too stubborn to back down on anything and to vague to give decent reasons to support your opinion. Why I even began to waste my time with you AGAIN on this is beyond me....

I will argue this issues with others less stubborn then yourself who will just admit that there was no real justification for it (from a Tolkien perspective) but liked it anyway. I have more respect for them then I do for you. As far as I'm concerned, my discussion about this issue with you is over...
 
Last edited:
I will argue this issues with others less stubborn then yourself who will just admit that there was no real justification for it
Click to expand...
In other words you will argue with people who are prepared to agree that you are right. How very opened minded of you!

You are dragging yourself out of this discussion at the right time: I'm afraid Thorin it is you have no leg to stand on. The film stands on its own merits: it has many admirers, amongst them more than enough Tolkien fans to make your claims to speak on behalf of all true fans rather hollow. It has popular and critical acclaim, it is succeeding at the box office, and I feel sure it will be viewed as a classic in years to come.

In that context 'justification' is irrelevant. Analysis of what PJ did is another matter - I am happy to have a reasoned discussion with anyone who doesn't want to turn it into a PJ-bashing rant, and who can avoid perjorative language. I'm not uncritical of the film, nor even of the Arwen scene, as I've said repeatedly. But your arguments inevitably deteriorate into throwing empty accusations, which boil down to 'it wasn't in the book'. There's no scope for a discussion on that basis.

On the other hand Grond takes up much more reasoned positions. I think you should check what he says. His recent posts are scarcely a ringing endorsement of your view. He has specifically said:
Ludicrous changes and feeble arguments are entirely too strong a portrayal of what has happened
Click to expand...
I hope to hear Grond's views on how we should judge adaptations - however trenchantly he argues, it is with logic and he reads what is posted first.

You lack consistency. You occasionally admit that some changes to the book are tolerable, but when I try to explore how that might be judged, you don't engage at all: you merely distort what I have said. Why should I not guess that in reality the fundamentalist position of 'no change is justified' is what you really believe, if you won't even have a proper discussion?

All your more impassioned posts lead me to the view that I have formed of you, that beneath it all, you don't think a film should ever have been made. I'm not saying that to trade insults, but to let you know honestly how you come across. I don't expect you to be greatly pleased to hear it though
 
If you want to have a film of Lord of the Rings you are going to have to make changes. All I have tried to do is to say how I would judge the validity of such changes. I put them up for discussion, not as engraved on tablets of stone. If you don't like them, say why!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Similar threads

'Háma, Doorward of Théoden' scene (Aragorn Post)
Replies
6
Views
896
Erurávennë
E
  • Solved
Should these life forms be considered real in Tolkien's universe?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Ugluk
U
A
Mind’s 👁️Eye Hobbit 4-CD: Need Track Times (Have BBC Indices to Share)
Replies
0
Views
318
Arvidd
A
Photography My Sarn Ford Camp videos.
Replies
6
Views
579
Captain Boromir
R
Another day, another mistake
Replies
14
Views
1K
Elthir
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…