Should they have given 🧝Arwen the extra scene?

[Beleg Strongbow]

I would have liked to see Glorfindel unclad as a mighty elf warrior.

 

[Anarchist]

I voted yes. If you think it the testosterone way the actress being Arwen is very beatiful and the chasing scene is fantastic. Ok I admit that the first time I saw this scene I was annoyed but thinking about it PJ was right introducing Arwen. It was wrong but not damaging.

 

[Gothmog]

I voted No to this as in my opinion what was done in the film did more damage other roles than any improvments made to Arwen's could make up for. Arwen could have been introduced early and shown to be brave and powerful very simply and without damage to the roles of the other major charaters by just giving her Glorfindel's role.

As for the chase scene I almost fell asleep because it was too long. All I wanted was for them to get it over with.

 

[Gerda Westerhof]

No, it's not at all how I imagined her. We all know that it was Glorfindel, one of the few great Elf-warriors, who saved Aragorn and the Hobbits in the book! And by the way, I'd loved to have seen such a strong, blond-haired Elf-prince!

Also, I did not like Frodo's part in the scene. Allthough he was severely wounded, in the book he found the strength to withstand the Ringwraths in the book and I believe that, should the movie have followed it, Frodo would gain more respect. Now he looks so feeble...

Arwen could have been introduced in the scene, after Boromir has discovered Narsil and Aragorn stands there holding the pieces.

Sorry for all you men who enjoyed Liv Tyler in her heroic role, but that's just not how I see Arwen...

 

[Harad]

For people who havent read the book, Arwen fits perfectly into the moive. They also might wonder, as people like me who did read the book wonder, why Glorfindel the Wonderful, never shows up again for the rest of the story. Arwen, if you can get over your expectations from the book, makes a lot of sense, and in many ways is a better character than Glorfindel. Frodo gets lots of other opportunities in the movie to show his courage.

 

[Gary Gamgee]

I haven't voted yet. i understand why there had to be a bigger female presence in the film and completely agree with this. But Frodo does lose alot in the film and this scene in the book was brilliant

"Go back to the land of Mordor and follow me no more"

She could have done exactly what Grolfindel does and put him on the horse.

 

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Harad
For people who havent read the book, Arwen fits perfectly into the moive. They also might wonder, as people like me who did read the book wonder, why Glorfindel the Wonderful, never shows up again for the rest of the story. Arwen, if you can get over your expectations from the book, makes a lot of sense, and in many ways is a better character than Glorfindel. Frodo gets lots of other opportunities in the movie to show his courage.

Yes, those people who don't seem to understand what a minor character is and does in a movie might wonder that. Maybe these people would also be thinking why Celeborn the Magnificent and Haldir the Great and the numerous other useless characters at the Council of Elrond didn't join him as well.

But apparently their uselessness can be justified and Arwen, a minor character doing things out of character, replacing another minor character and doing things differently then the way that original minor character was supposed to do things, can be justified to the nth degree. Harad, your leperous aversion to minor characters must have made your reading experience of LoTR miserable. "What? Why is this Glorfindel not in the rest of the book?" Let's make every minor character in the book into a major character and make LoTR 3000 pages!

Boy, if Glorfindel bothered you so much, you must have had a hard time dealing with:

1) Gildor
2) Bomabadil
3) Farmer Maggot
4) Fatty Bolger
5) Haldir
6) Ghan Buri Ghan
7) The mere mention of Cirdan, never mind not seeing him
8) Ted Sandyman
9) Lobelia Sackville-Baggins
10) Barliman Butterbur

And countless others who appear once and for no apparent reason. Your justification of editing Glorfindel because he doesn't show up later on and people will "wonder" where he is is very weak.

 

[Harad]

Thorin,
As you missed the whole "Searching for Glorfindel" thread, I have to forgive your ignorance of the difference between a "minor" character and a "weak" character.

Glorfindel the Great, the only Elf who came back East after Dying, the Despoiler of the Great Balrog, the Terrorizer of Nazguls, chooses and is chosen to sit out the War of the Rings at Rivendell, while other more hearty souls like Legolas do the heavy lifting. This is the very definition of a "weak" and "out-of-place" character.

I am bereft at my inability to explain what should be simple issues. Its takes my self-image down a peg or two, let me tell ya.

 

[Grond]

Then by your own definition Harad, Arwen too is a weak character in the book and had no business having an enhanced role in the movie. She also did nothing in the book to further the cause of the war in the east and is no stronger a character than Glorfindel. Following your line of logic again, PJ could have just as easily enhanced Glorfindel's role and made it more monumental just as he did for Arwen's.

Once again you are saying one thing out of the left side of your mouth and another thing out of the right side. Admit it, both Arwen and Glorfindel were minor characters. We have no idea whether Glorfindel or Arwen were weak characters because their exploits were not featured in the book. For all we know, both Arwen and Glorfindel led a troop of Elves to the defense of Thranduil as his kingdom was assaulted by the forces of Dol Goldur. We just don't know and you certaintly don't know. Please quit making generalizations about a character as if they are facts (Glorfindel is a weak character) when it is in fact, simply your opinion.

 

[Thorin]

What Harad still doesn't seem to accept or grasp is that Arwen is ARWEN! She should stay the Arwen that Tolkien intended. Whether Glorfindel was a "weak" character doesn't change the fact that Arwen (of all of Tolkien's characters) should not have been made to do the things that she did, in the place that she did, in the time that she did.

The only reason why that was done was for the audience to be introduced to Arwen early....The rest was typical "Hollywood" action purposes.

PJ could have created scenes to introduce Arwen to the people and still made her a viable character that stayed true to Tolkien.

It was blasphemed and until Harad can finally admit that (Whether that was a smart cinematic move or that he really liked it is beside the point)

Until Harad stops arguing like JRR meant her to do those things it is impossible to argue with him.

 

[Harad]

Until Harad stops arguing like JRR meant her to do those things it is impossible to argue with him.

I am using the English language, arent I? I never said what you accuse me of saying. Does it matter? I said:

I completely understand the "sacrilegious" Arwen segment, and believe that it makes the movie more accessible to general audiences, and most importantly that it perfectly congruent, in principle, with LOTR.

Can you as a person from an English-speaking country parse the difference between what I said, and what you said I said.

Then by your own definition Harad, Arwen too is a weak character in the book and had no business having an enhanced role in the movie.

By my own definition? Was Arwen the only Elf to come back from the East after being killed? Did Arwen kill the Great Balrog? Did Arwen chase Nazgul for 1000s of years? No, thats the "weak" character Glorfindel. And for the gazillionth time for anybody foolish enuf to read this, I mean "weak" in the literary sense. He was a very muscular character, indeed TOO muscular for LOTR. Arwen, on the other hand, was a MINOR character, whose role was enhanced in the movie.

 

[Snaga]

I get you loud and clear Harad. Once again people are indulging in their favourite sports: Thorin disagrees with anything if PJ did it, Grond disagrees with anything if you wrote it!

Another way of putting it is this: if the elf who the 4 Hobbits and Aragorn meet was ANY elf from Rivendell, regardless of history, gender, personality, anything it would have served the plot just as well. Glorfindel in the book = generic elf. At the most, he needed to be a more powerful than average elf, to justify the ability to scare the horses into the water.

Grond:

For all we know, both Arwen and Glorfindel led a troop of Elves to the defense of Thranduil as his kingdom was assaulted by the forces of Dol Goldur. We just don't know and you certaintly don't know.

Sorry mate but that's your worst ever argument. Do you honestly believe that JRRT would have failed to mention that? Of course not. Glorfindel and Arwen are certainly noteworthy names, whose actions JRRT would have documented if they were significant. They are just cardboard cut-outs in comparison to the major characters (e.g. members of the Fellowship).

Thorin, it is you who are impossible to argue with. You disagree with anything that is not exactly as per the book. A change is 'blasphemy'. How can anyone debate with a fundamentalist like you? One would think that your complaint boils down to this: JRRT didn't write the screen-play so its wrong.

 

[Grond]

In my own defense, VoK, I have agreed with Harad numerous times. I will now entirely drop my Glorfindel defense, neither will I make the mistake of invoking the "out of character" defense when referring to Arwen's enhanced role. I've decided to invoke a new defense. It is called the "show me where she does that in the book" defense. I challenge any single person in this wide, wide world of sports to show me where Arwen had any such role in the book, and with that, I rest my case.

 

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Variag of Khand
Thorin disagrees with anything if PJ did it

Thorin, it is you who are impossible to argue with. You disagree with anything that is not exactly as per the book. A change is 'blasphemy'. How can anyone debate with a fundamentalist like you? One would think that your complaint boils down to this: JRRT didn't write the screen-play so its wrong.

Oh, come on VK. Do you honestly mean to tell me that Arwen's distortion is an acceptable thing? You can't compare little changes that are not true to the book like Gandalf bumping his head or acting like a crazy old man in the Shire, or Merry and Pippin playing with Gandalf's fireworks like a Middle Earth Abbot and Costello duo, to a major distortion of a character like Arwen to justify screen time. Some changes are acceptable.. Others definitely are not...

I have no problems with many of the liberties that PJ took and in some ways he actually added something by doing those changes...However, any Tolkien fan would find serious fault in the poor handling of Arwen...As you said, ANY unkown elf of Elrond's clan would have been acceptable...Arwen was another totally different character who 1) Did not belong where she was 2) Did not belong doing the things she did or in the manner she did them in. 3) Was definitely not the way Tolkien intended her to be and created her for a good reason.

If you honestly can't say that, as a Tolkien fan who finds the book and it's characters somewhat sacred, I am justified in totally disagreeing with what PJ did in that instance, then what more can I say? I guess that I will always be a fundamentalist....

 

[Harad]

There's not much you can say. Arwen was an artistic invention of Peter Jackson, known as a composite character by those who are familiar with Film as a medium. The film Arwen was completely consistent with a character that might have come directly from LOTR with minor, if any, nit-picking differences. The way the film was shot contrasting Arwen with the Nazgul was brilliant. If you can not get over your ultra-conservative stance on this, at least recognize it for what it is: inabilty to let LOTR grow within the film in an organic way, or to accept that anyone else besides JRRT might have a good idea in the universe that JRRT invented.

 

[Eonwe]

I am going to perhaps lose some people's respect for this but...

I would like to say that I think the Arwen thing I did not like at first, but I am ok with it. I think that it did not change the overall story. Its not what I would have done, and I don't think it was necessary for PJ to make this change.

In fact (oh my God I can't believe I am going to say this), I think PJ should have exchanged her for Legolas in the Fellowship. I mean, how would that have changed the overall plot? Its not what I would pick but...

I hope you all respect me in the morning...

 

[Grond]

Originally posted by Harad
There's not much you can say. Arwen was an artistic invention of Peter Jackson, known as a composite character by those who are familiar with Film as a medium. The film Arwen was completely consistent with a character that might have come directly from LOTR with minor, if any, nit-picking differences. The way the film was shot contrasting Arwen with the Nazgul was brilliant. If you can not get over your ultra-conservative stance on this, at least recognize it for what it is: inabilty to let LOTR grow within the film in an organic way, or to accept that anyone else besides JRRT might have a good idea in the universe that JRRT invented.

Harad, I would agree totally with you if Arwen had not ridden with Frodo to the Fords. That is where your wonderful analogy and explanation comes apart. PJ has made her a composite character of Arwen, Glorfindel and ........Frodo. She took Glorfindel's role (I've already said I had no problem with this) and Frodo's role in order to enhance Arwen's role. That just was not a characterization in the book unless you concede that a part of her compositeness (hehe) was Frodo's. If you concede that, then we are in agreement. I still would prefer it not have happened but I can live with it. (I still think Liv Tyler is hot!!)

 

[PRH]

I think PJ should have exchanged her for Legolas in the Fellowship. I mean, how would that have changed the overall plot?

hmm...don't you think that would've completely changed the dymanic between Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli? Having her around would've probably taken Aragorn away from the main quest too much. And if the friendship between Gimli and Legolas is developed in the FOTR DVD and TTT & ROTK, this would've all been ruined by her inclusion in the fellowship and Gimli would've been a loner.

 

[Eonwe]

well I can agree, the legolas/gimli thing would be gone but...

A) I don't know if PJ is going to develop this relationship; I would guess not
B) I don't know if PJ is going to do much concerning the elves/men/dwarves race to Fangorn.

If you take these out, there are some other scenes:

Paths of the Dead -- will this be shown?
Scene on Corsairs ship
Scene of Legolas and Gimli talking to Aragorn about Palantir
Scene of Legolas and Gimli talking to Merry and Pippin at Orthanc

I just think of the detail in FoTR regarding these and what was not shown in the movie, and I think prob. none of the details of Legolas and Gimli will be shown anyway...

Just thoughts, not religious fervor

 

[PRH]

Scene on Corsairs ship
Scene of Legolas and Gimli talking to Aragorn about Palantir
Scene of Legolas and Gimli talking to Merry and Pippin at Orthanc

I'm sure both of these scenes will be shown in real time rather than with explanations. This will be true for almost everything.

Paths of the Dead -- will this be shown?

small spoiler!:


I've heard Viggo describe his character as being able to summon the dead so I'm sure Paths of the Dead will be in. As with everything else, it will almost surely be shown real-time and not explained.


Almost NOTHING will be 'explained' -- it will almost ALL be shown. This is just how movies differ from books AND PJ has already set a pattern of this in FOTR.