Tell me I'm not seeing this...

Why, may I ask, is it necessary to have a strong female lead in this movie? There have been numerous recent releases with minimal female involvement in the film. A few examples are, Saving Private Ryan, Castaway, BlackHawk Down and so on.

Having said all that, the simple truth is that JRRT did write a very strong female lead into the book by the name of Eowyn. She's the one that beheads a flying reptile and then vanquishes the Nazgul Lord.

I wouldn't put too much energy into picking apart this thing. It's not like we have guarantees that any of this footage will make it into the final movie anyways. The screenplay isn't done, the shooting hasn't finished and the studio has final say as to what will be in the theatrical release, so anything shown now is premature and has a chance of not showing up in the final cut...

I do agree. It is quite silly to lose our heads over something that may not even come to be. Good call.

Grond, using Castaway as an example is not bolstering your point. There's a difference between a predominantly male cast and an essentially one-person cast.

The other two movies were strictly historical/fact based war movies in which major female characters would've been historically inaccurate. Female characters would've stuck out like a sore whatever.

I'm not disagreeing with your point that major female characters are not necessary, I just don't think you've listed any solid examples.

I'm not sure that the issue with Arwen was ever expanding the female presence in the movies. I think rather PJ et al felt that the Arwen/Aragorn thing just wouldn't work cinematically as it appeared in the book. So the choices were to either cut it altogether or to expand Arwen's character to give her some presence.

Originally posted by PRH
Grond, using Castaway as an example is not bolstering your point. There's a difference between a predominantly male cast and an essentially one-person cast.

The other two movies were strictly historical/fact based war movies in which major female characters would've been historically inaccurate. Female characters would've stuck out like a sore whatever.

I'm not disagreeing with your point that major female characters are not necessary, I just don't think you've listed any solid examples.

I'm not sure that the issue with Arwen was ever expanding the female presence in the movies. I think rather PJ et al felt that the Arwen/Aragorn thing just wouldn't work cinematically as it appeared in the book. So the choices were to either cut it altogether or to expand Arwen's character to give her some presence.

Click to expand...

Okay... how about "The Godfather"? In it, there were actually more female characterization in the novel than made it to the big screen. Lucy Mancini in particular had a huge role in the book and barely made it on screen. (Maybe 30 seconds).

Pesonally, I think this whole issue is simply one of PJ thinking he could tell a better tale than Tolkien wrote. I don't buy that any of the major plot changes were done because they had to be done for cinematic reasons. Arwen's expansion was because PJ wanted a stronger female character. It's that simple. He disliked some of the logic in the book... so he changed it. Again, he's making the movie so that is his perogative. I just wish he would have been totally honest at the beginning. I thought we were going to get the real deal and had to settle for another wannabee.

I think Kay and Connie were pretty major characters in The Godfather (not to mention Apolonia). I never read the book. Mario Puzo had a hand in the screenplay so I think it had his blessing. Not sure what the point of bringing up GF was...

Just imagine this - what if Arwen had just been seen briefly in Rivendell (not saying a word) then showed up in Minas Tirith to marry Aragorn. Good? Hell no! Along the way in the book all we get it like 3 veiled allusions that Aragorn is thinking about her from time to time. The only reason the story works is because we all read it later in the appendix. To show the book version (no extra appendix material) in the movie would've been utterly ridiculous. It would've been better to cut the Arwen thread altogether. The only choice was to expand her character. There may have been better choices than having her replace Glorfindel (or not) but the fact is she needed more involvement than the book gave.

PRH, I've always conceded that there were ways to give Arwen more character development in FotR without compromising the author's intent. (IMO)

I thought the scene in Rivendell with Arwen and Aragorn was wonderful and felt it conveyed the same type of emotion one got when reading Of Arwen and Aragorn in the Appendix. I also didn't have a sizeable problem with Arwen replacing Glorfindel. I would have preferred to have met PJ's vision of Glorfindel but would have been satisfied had he simply replaced Glor's character with Arwen.

It is the change in "strength" of Arwen's character that disturbs me. It reveals a strength which she may have possessed but which JRRT chose not to reveal. I simply question PJ's reasons for changing the portrayal.

PRH... you know I loved the movie. I've already said so numerous times. I'll be first in line for the TT... but I still see no reason for the significant changes we've talked about in the past. The movie would have been just as big a success had it remained more in line with the book.

PS In the great scheme of things, Kay and Connie were minor. Appolonia was an important aside but her character was meaningless (heck she didn't even speak English). The important character that was left out was Lucy Mancini and her relationship with Sonny and later with Jules and the way that relationship interacted with Johnny Fontaine. You are right though that Mario Puzo did co-write the screenplay and the finished product reflects the author's involvement.

And, my point was that a major...strong...dominant female lead is not a requirement in a fantasy adventure movie. Especially when the author didn't write the part.

I don't think we're talking about dominant leading-part women.

Kay was pretty big.

The only reason you say that about Arwen is because she held a sword up. I really doubt anything would've been noticed if she didn't draw her sword at the Ford.

To talk about compromising Arwen's character is a tad ridiculous. In the book she had no character - appendix included. She existed to love Aragorn and was basically uninteresting.

Personally, I could've seen Arwen replacing Glorfindel insomuch as the book involved Glorfindel (meaning Frodo would've ridden to the Ford alone). That would've been fine too insofar as expanding Arwen character. That was enough. I guess PJ et. al felt Frodo was in no condition to ride and to have him defy the Nazgul at the Ford would come off as too far-fetched given his condition. That's an entirely different topic.

I thought the bridge scene in Rivendell was great too. Probably not enough to sustain Arwen's character until the end of ROTK though.

Looks like this is becoming another 'Arwen at the Ford' thread...

Praise the Lord!!! And here I am!!!.......

Originally posted by PRH

The only reason you say that about Arwen is because she held a sword up. I really doubt anything would've been noticed if she didn't draw her sword at the Ford.

Click to expand...

I would have noticed.....

Originally posted by PRH
Personally, I could've seen Arwen replacing Glorfindel insomuch as the book involved Glorfindel (meaning Frodo would've ridden to the Ford alone). That would've been fine too insofar as expanding Arwen character. That was enough. I guess PJ et. al felt Frodo was in no condition to ride and to have him defy the Nazgul at the Ford would come off as too far-fetched given his condition. That's an entirely different topic.

Click to expand...

The problem lies in the horrific condensing of the time frame....When the fellowship comes across the trolls (in the book), Frodo is still alive and active (though in considerable pain), not eyes rolling in the back of his head, raspy death rattle like PJ did with Elijah....He made him get more sicker then he was...If he hadn't done that, he could have made Frodo do the chase.

(ICAN'T HELP IT, I HAVE TO PUT A DIG IN HERE!!).....If PJ "et al. would have followed the book better, they wouldn't have had to wonder what PJ et al would need to think....It would have been what JRR wrote....But PJ had to go and make it complicated for himself...I'll shut up now....I do have more to say.....but.....

...The only reason you say that about Arwen is because she held a sword up. I really doubt anything would've been noticed if she didn't draw her sword at the Ford.

Click to expand...

My problem wasn't with the sword... it was with the fact that she saved Frodo when in the book, it was good old Frodo who defied the Nazgul and Elrond and Gandalf who brought down the River vis a vis the power of the two Elven Rings.

To talk about compromising Arwen's character is a tad ridiculous. In the book she had no character - appendix included. She existed to love Aragorn and was basically ininteresting.

Click to expand...

That would be your opinion. And, besides, the book was quite successful without having Arwen play an important role... so I don't quite get your point. We have Galadriel and Eowyn both playing strong female characters, what is the point in adding Arwen? (Can we say Liv Tyler???)

I guess PJ et. al felt Frodo was in no condition to ride and to have him defy the Nazgul at the Ford would come off as too far-fetched given his condition. That's an entirely different topic.

Click to expand...

It is the same topic because he had Arwen rescue him, whether it was with a sword or without. It wouldn't have mattered. It was not her role.

As for this resembling the Arwen at the Ford thread... it does because that example is being used to discuss more distortions by the Director.

Elrond and Gandalf who brought down the River vis a vis the power of the two Elven Rings

Click to expand...

Really...I wasn't aware that it was made evident that Elrond used ANY magic to make the flood. In fact, the only thing I remember said on the subject was that "Elrond commanded it..." and that "The river of this valley is under his power...". While I am not saying definately that there was no magic involved at all, it seems to me that this could just as easily mean that Elrond stuck his head out the window and yelled "Open the Floodgates!".

To talk about compromising Arwen's character is a tad ridiculous. In the book she had no character - appendix included. She existed to love Aragorn and was basically ininteresting.

Click to expand...

This actually describes then two thirds of all the characters in The Silmarillion...

I guess PJ et. al felt Frodo was in no condition to ride and to have him defy the Nazgul at the Ford would come off as too far-fetched given his condition. That's an entirely different topic.

Click to expand...

Funny how the one person who actually KNEW if Frodo was too bad off to do stand up to the Nazgul, Tolkien, went ahead and wrote it that way...and that you, and Millions of others, found it perfectly believable and rational. What you are in fact saying in this statement is that Peter Jackson, New Line Cinema and others knew the character of Frodo better then Tolkien.

Originally posted by ReadWryt
This actually describes then two thirds of all the characters in The Silmarillion...

Click to expand...

Not really. We do get some dialog and actions of of a good many of them.

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Funny how the one person who actually KNEW if Frodo was too bad off to do stand up to the Nazgul, Tolkien, went ahead and wrote it that way...and that you, and Millions of others, found it perfectly believable and rational. What you are in fact saying in this statement is that Peter Jackson, New Line Cinema and others knew the character of Frodo better then Tolkien.

Click to expand...

Me? Where did I say I believed it? I was careful to say "PJ et. al" so as not to endorse this change. Funny how you always read what you want to in other's posts.

Now I'm consfused PRH. RW states in his post (which you quoted) that you and millions of others beleived the book. He then stated that what it appears you are saying is that PJ, New Line and others know the book better than Tolkien. What you said exactly is as follows.

I guess PJ et. al felt Frodo was in no condition to ride and to have him defy the Nazgul at the Ford would come off as too far-fetched given his condition. That's an entirely different topic.

Click to expand...

In past posts you have supported this change. In past posts you've stated "I guess PJ et. al felt Frodo was in no condition to ride..." Endorsing the change = support of the change. Support of the change = PJ knowing the character better than JRRT.

I'm sure that I'm not understanding you PRH. Please clarify your position.

Can't you understand the distinction between the following statements?:

1) "I guess PJ et. al felt that Frodo was in no condition to..."

2) "Frodo was in no condition to..."

I guess not. #2 expresses the opinion of the person writing the statement. #1 guesses the frame of mind of the (third person) screenwriters. I put that "that's another topic" part in because I didn't want this to become that debate all over again.

I have not contradicted myself because I put forth no opinion of my own on this matter yet. But if you're asking for it, here it is:

I am very torn on this matter. I think given the build up of Frodo's condition in the book it was pretty far-fetched to think he could manage what he did at the Ford. Hence the change makes sense. On the other hand, it was Tolkien's writing so that hold's an ultimate truth of it's own, sensical or no.

I grieve more for the overall loss of Frodo's courage in the movie than just the loss of his Nazgul defiance at the Ford. If he'd stabbed at the Witch King on Weathertop and stabbed the Troll's foot (granted, he did slice at it's hand but that's only when he was cornered) then maybe I could've done without his far-fetched defiance at the Ford but losing all of these bravery instances was a little too much.

PRH, your comments give me hope for the human race again.

Hobbit Characterization

I actually think that the movie, by portraying some of Frodo's choices as his OWN rather than the last option after considering all others (taking the ring to Rivendell, then volunteering to take it to Mordor), makes Frodo look brave. Maybe he is portrayed as a little docile in the battle scenes of FOTR, but that may also be a reasonable cinematic substitute for not really being able to communicate the immense burden of the ring--by making Frodo more physically inactive onscreen than he was in the book, perhaps it makes the viewer more continually aware of his special burden and the importance of Frodo to the other Fellowship members. But when he wraps his hand around the ring and looks at Gandalf and says, "What must I do?" with a growing look of resolve on his face, I think he does a pretty good job of conveying Frodo as Tolkien intended.

I AM hoping that the next few movies show the hobbits in more of a "heroic" role than the first one. Especially with the Scouring of the Shire supposedly being taken out of the movies, it may be difficult for PJ to replace the "look at these funny little guys" feeling of the first movie. Some of the most powerful acts of heroism in the books come from the hobbits, and I hope that doesn't get overlooked in favor of using them as comic relief.

Re: Hobbit Characterization

...But when he wraps his hand around the ring and looks at Gandalf and says, "What must I do?" with a growing look of resolve on his face, I think he does a pretty good job of conveying Frodo as Tolkien intended.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that goes well with his heroic action in asking Gandalf, "No one else knows where it is?? Do they Gandalf? Do they?" I thought he gave us his "wetting his britches" look when he said that.

I AM hoping that the next few movies show the hobbits in more of a "heroic" role than the first one. Especially with the Scouring of the Shire supposedly being taken out of the movies, it may be difficult for PJ to replace the "look at these funny little guys" feeling of the first movie. Some of the most powerful acts of heroism in the books come from the hobbits, and I hope that doesn't get overlooked in favor of using them as comic relief.

Click to expand...

To this I wholeheartedly agree. The first movie might have easily been entitled "The Four Stooges".

PRH,

...you are correct, I should have phrased that "...What you are in fact saying in this statement is that Peter Jackson, New Line Cinema and others thought they knew the character of Frodo better then Tolkien.", instead of making the offence of shoving you into their fold. I'm sorry.

R.W.

Thank you RW.

Is this more of your nonsensical posting s.o.b.?