Should they have given 🧝Arwen the extra scene?

Originally posted by Variag of Khand
I have to say I am still at a loss to understand why THIS change is the one that provokes so much fury. There are a whole heap of changes, whole chapters excised, material plot changes, significant alterations to major characters etc, but its this minor change that really gets the NPWs steamed up. Its major impact is on minor characters (the Frodo issue aside), and it makes not a jot of difference to the plot. Go figure...

If I didn't have 100% respect for the clearly argued, rational and articulate expositions of you all I'd almost think it was because you knew about it before the film was ever released, and had already made up your mind months ago. Its a good job I'm not that cynical.

Click to expand...

You know, VoK, my students saw the very first showing and they came back and said that it wasn't as bad as I thought it might be. Even before this, I thought "Okay, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt I do want to see Tolkien's epic on the screen despite the changes." And I went....sigh...

I don't see Arwen as a minor change at all. How can you say that? A minor change is Legolas wearing boots, Gandalf bumping his head, Pippin and Merry setting off fireworks, the Balrog being 25 feet tall, orcs crawling on pedastals, Lorien looking gloomier then usual, Elrond coming off more as a grump....Those are minor changes, and despite the many added scenes and changes, I tolerated them and in some cases, enjoyed them (i.e. the way the ringwraiths turned their heads when the ring slipped on Frodo's finger at Bree)

I tried to ignore the Arwen scene when it started but it got worse and worse and worse until I couldn't stand it anymore....Especially after the flood swept the wraiths away and she was with Frodo on the bank....It was just too much...It distorted her character and altered the actions of others....Definitely not a minor change....ick!!!

You see to me the change to Aragorn's character is more significant (i.e. suggesting he has refused the kingship), and so is the change to the Breaking of the Fellowship. Aragorn is a more significant figure, and the Breaking of the Fellowship is (to me) the pivotal moment in the whole of the story (ie across all 3 books).

At one level, the key thing about the Fords scene is Frodo has to make it to Rivendell on the brink of death and the 9 need to be swept away. That's inviolable. In order of importance afterwards comes Frodo's defiance (shame that's lost); but the fact its Glorfindel (and by the same token, that its not Arwen) seems to be much less significant IMO.

I think its maybe worth recognising that all of us respond in a way that is part rational and part emotional. I'm still quite bugged by orcs climbing pillars, and that there were so many thousands of them in Moria... But it doesn't really matter in lots of ways! My head tells me that, but in my heart I just don't like it.

VoK, I guess that we just have a different view. Your problems with Aragorn and the like are what I would deem "portrayals" and things which I give PJ lattitude in doing. Merry and Pippin didn't blow up fireworks but could have. We weren't told Aragorn rejected the kingship but he could have. I don't mind all of the could haves. What I mind is material distortion of things that could not have occurred. Arwen could not have been at the Ford because in the book her "composite character" just didn't exist. Many things and people were at the Ford but one of them was not Arwen.

Yes, clearly we do have a different view.

I'm not worried about the fireworks either.

But Aragorn did not reject the kingship (in the book) because he would not as its out of character, and noone else did either. Arwen could have gone to help Frodo etc., because she was in Rivendell, and we know next to nothing about her capabilities and disposition. Moreover, another minor character did do (most of) the things attributed to Arwen. Therefore, the Aragorn changes alter the plot, the Glorfindel/Arwen ones do not.

My concern is that the could haves stretch the facts and create where there was none...Why not stick to the story...

And as for Arwen, no place is she doing anything remotely like the movie, so could haves are really nonsense to justify it....If Arwen had been the one to go after the company in the book, but did not do the things she did in the movie, then you could have some justification for PJ stretching things....However, she was created out of character to do the things attributed to entirely different characters....She is nothing remotely like Tolkien's Arwen...At least Gandalf and Aragorn are shown to do things that could be used to justify them to do many other different things (i.e. maybe Gandalf levitating and object or something).

I don't think it is wise to base everything on what could have.

And as for Arwen, no place is she doing anything remotely like the movie

Click to expand...

Nowhere is she doing "anything" period. Period.

How can you be so upset about the elevation of a non-entity character all the way up to a minor character? If she shot laser stun guns at the Nazgul or stretched her arm like Mr Elastic or solved mathematical equations like John Nash...none of those. She acted like a JRRT Elf Maiden, doing the things that ACTUALLY happened in the story.

Its good to hear your opinions tho. They are wonderful reminders of the reasoning that results in projects that can and do go terribly wrong.

Plenty more Arwen to come

I personally was disappointed to see Frodo's courage not displayed openly in the movie, Arwen being the one to be gifted this role by PJ

Interestingly I was out of town watching CNN the morning after Oscar nominations and CNN interviewed PJ live from Wellington NZ.
Yank Interviewer: Obviously Tolkien hadn't meet Liv Tyler becuase if he had he would have Given Arwen a bigger role in the books.
PJ: Don't worry, there is plenty more of Liv still to come.

Yank Interviewer: Obviously Tolkien hadn't meet Liv Tyler becuase if he had he would have Given Arwen a bigger role in the books.

Click to expand...

Hmmmmm. Now, I´m really worried.

Get out your puke bucket.

Get out your puke bucket

Click to expand...

My "imaginary" puke buket.

I´m really concerned about certain "liberties" that the writters are taking.

But i thought that PJ FOTR movie was great.!

Click to expand...

The more I talk to Female tolkien vigins the more I hear.

"Too scary", "didn't think it would be soo violent", "I was petrified"

I'm sure the love between Aragorn and Arwen will have a bigger role in TTT to keep the half the worlds population happy and coming to watch the movie.
The changes in The Flight to the ford will seem small in comparison.

Which half do you mean? Is that a female half you think likes a bit of romance, or a male half that like Liv Tyler? (Be careful how you answer that!)

Do many men really rate Liv Tyler, there's better eye candy than Liv. No the better half will always go to a movie if you can convince them there is some girly sop in it

Personally, I doubt that.....A fantasy adventure like LoTR cannot be determined to view it based on "girly-sop" or not....If you go to see an action, special effects, wizards, orcs and spells movie in hopes that there will be some "chicks" in it, you don't know how to pick a movie.

I didn't watch "Saving Private Ryan", "Con Air" and "12 Angry Men" with the hope and expectation that there would be some "hot women" (and sorry, Grond, but Liv Tyler makes me wince, not drool ) or romance in it...That is why I go and see "You've Got Mail" and "Serendipity"....

I just don't see LoTR as being successful or being judged based on whether or not there are important female characters or romance in it. It's not that kind of movie.

I agree with what Thorins saying, anyway not all girls like only movies with romance, but i think your forgetting that alot of the male actors in LOTR were pretty cute