Tell me I'm not seeing this...

[Aerin]

I am downloading the Two Towers trailer (and looking at the shots while it's loading), and I just saw something that made me stop cold.
Does Eowyn fight Aragorn and win?!?! It looks like they're doing another scene like Arwen had - with her sword pointed at Aragorn's neck, and he has his hands up in surrender.
Is that how a Ranger would act? He would not have lasted long in the wilds of Middle Earth if every time he came up against a girl with a sword he lost....

O my... I just got a little farther in the trailer.. and there is Arwen kissing Aragorn... AT HELM'S DEEP?!?

I beg you, tell me that Arwen does not fight at Helm's Deep... that would completely ruin the whole movie and completely sever any link there might be to the book!

 

[Mormegil]

Don't be so melodramatic.

It's not the end of the world if Arwen fights at Helm's Deep. Ok, it's not in the book, or how Tolkien intended. But this is PJ's interpretation and he has chosen it this way. If you don't like it then don't watch the film.

 

[Aerin]

How do you call something completely made up an "interpretation"?
Arwen did not even have a part in the book - how does PJ figure to put her in one of the most important battles? If it's for the politically correct female role (aka Xena-type), then Eowyn should more than fill the role.

 

[Mormegil]

By interpretation I meant that PJ is telling the story of LOTR. In his way. He has his reasons for doing it the way he is doing it. There is a distinct lack of major leading women in the book. If PJ had made the film exactly as the book then feminists everywhere would go off their heads and condemn the film. PJ has made Arwen's role bigger for this reason. Eowyn will probably be there too, that means two strong women characters, making the story less sexist.
Arwen does have a part in the book. Just not much.

PJ is making the film for a film going audience, not for Tolkien purists. He is trying to make money, and to do that certain things have to be changed. These are things that you have to realise. Things will be sacrificed if you want to see LOTR on the big screen. As I said before, no-one is forcing you to watch it, so if you don't like it you don't have to watch it.

 

[Aerin]

So Eowyn killing the Witchking is a part of the "distinct lack of major leading women in the book"?
As I have stated before, I realize that PJ wants the movies to appeal to a larger fan base, and therefore must make certain changes to appease different groups.
It's not the Tolkien puritanism that I was making a point about; it's that PJ has so dramatically changed the entire story to make it fit in with his idea of how LotR should be. If he wants to make these movies, that's fine with me. I don't have to watch them, as you said.
What does bug me, though, is that he's trying to pass his creation off as Tolkien's books. If he is going to change it so much, why bother calling it what a few of the characters and some of the plot are loosely based on.. why not come up with a name of its own so people will know it's Peter Jackson's creation, not Tolkien's.

 

[Mormegil]

Of course Eowyn is a strong character, but apart from her and Galadriel. There are no more strong leading females.

As for the name thing. Did you not read my above post? PJ is making LOTR to make money. He will make more money by calling it LOTR and not something else. The movie industry is all about making money, staying true to a book a film is based on comes lower on the list.

 

[Aerin]

It would seem in the film industry that staying close to the book is nowhere on the list at times. But lying? That seems to be in a classification all by itself; and PJ has done quite a bit of it.

On one hand, I see why PJ put Arwen in the role he did; the whole PC issue is one that needs to be treated with the utmost delicacy.
On the other hand, I think it's ridiculous that such a wonderful story has to be diminished because of a few radicals with the idea that any woman should be just as good at fighting and ranging the wilderness as a Ranger who has lived that way all his life.
It seems since Xena is making no new episodes, her prodigy is going into the theatres disguised as an Elf.

 

[4th Age Scribe]

Your right.

I only saw the trailer once at the movies, and she does indeed parry his sword with a dagger [puting it to his throat]. She certainly isn't an enemy when this take place, so I would think Aragorn is not trying whole heartedly to kill the lady.

 

[I.am.Smeagol]

Geeze. I dont think this is about sexism. I mean if you think about it realistily in our middle ages women did not go out and fight, so the book is realistic in that sence. I am quite angry at the twist of the plot. I am female, and would not be offended if there had been no strong female characters in the movie. In fact, I feel slightly offended that the plot of LotR has been changed to suit PJ's needs.

(Dont get my wrong, I am all for women's equallity, and I still love the movies because it portrays ME and the characters pretty well..)

 

[Aerin]

I agree with you, I.am.Smeagol., the female roles in LotR do not need to be altered in any way because Tolkien's writings made sense and were historically accurate (in a way; I'm by no means saying that LotR is an actual history meant to be taken literally). Women did not run around "beating up the bad guys back then".
What PJ has seemingly done is to force into our minds the presence of Arwen and Eowyn's fighting abilities. (even though Eowyn is the only one who could actually fight... )

 

[I.am.Smeagol]

Yep! (Wow,, someone who actually agrees w/ me. This is scary! )
Btw, where is everyone downloading the TTT trailor from? I would like to down load it to get captures of Smeagol for my website. (iamsmeagol.net--but its not done yet)

 

[Anamatar IV]

i think you dont have the real trailor. Mine is from inside the cinema:
It didnt look like Aragorn surrendered but obviously had no intention to kill Eowyn.
I didnt see arwen @ helms deep.

 

[I.am.Smeagol]

Nevermind everyone, I found a few versions. =)
Well Aragorn, does look a bit flustered. And it shows Arwen kinda dead or dieing. Erm. Well thats what it looks like. If they have Arwen kill the Nazgul I will be rather angry. To say it in the least.

 

[Thorin]

Another thing that bothers me about this whole Eowyn thing is that Tolkien made her so everyone thought she was a weak women who should stay at home....She surprised them by sneaking off to battle with them. Her disguise was perfect because nobody would have thought her to do so...

Her openly showing her sword skills and besting a Ranger takes that away, never mind makes the Ranger and heir of Isildur look like an idiot...

Sorry, Mormegil. There is no excuse for changing so many things and altering so many characters. When you are claiming to be a fan(like PJ), spending so much time and money to make a movie out of an epic, and claiming to be making a true rendition (However, I think PJ has realised the idiocy of doing this when you are changing everything), you will treat it with much more respect than PJ has.

When does it become PJ's Lord of the Rings, instead of JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings? I don't want to see PJ's Arwen vamped, politically correct version...I want to see the real deal that he promised. Down with PJ!

 

[ReadWryt]

Let me just state for the record that Female Activities and their relation to Warfare and other events 6000 years ago are not well documented at all...in fact there is scant little written about events 6000 years ago at all. As for Jackson and his claims of not making "major changes" to the characters and Liv Tylor's claim that Arwen doesn't fight or act like Xena, we can all see how reliable those sources are and how honestly we can accept anything they say in the future...

 

[son of bilbo]

***Just for the record, the next person who fills a post with the same word over and over will be deleted without question or chance of appology. This type of juvinile behavior will not be tolerated in the least. R.W. ***

 

[Nicholas Blake]

Does Eowyn fight Aragorn and win?!?! It looks like they're doing another scene like Arwen had - with her sword pointed at Aragorn's neck, and he has his hands up in surrender.
Is that how a Ranger would act? He would not have lasted long in the wilds of Middle Earth if every time he came up against a girl with a sword he lost....

Hm, aren't we forgetting that Aragorn took on five Nazgul alone? Hm, then he sliced up the Watcher in the Water with only help from Boromir and Legolas... Oh yeah, he also fought a small army of Uruk Hai all by himself...

Yep, Aragorn is such a sissy. He could never survive in Middle-earth, cuz he always surrenders to girls! Pfst!

 

[son of bilbo]

I don't appreciate you impersonating me. I am so remorsful, so remorsful, and I am remorsful that I kept on and kept on and wouldn't stop keeping on saying things twice.


Arwen better not die in the TT.

 

[son of bilbo]

And she better not die.

 

[I.am.Smeagol]

PJ couldnt kill off his major female supporting role.
Isnt this what this mess is about in the first place, why there is soo much Arwen? I think I am about to strangle the warrior queen myself. (Movie Arwen, of course.) If she even thinks of killing the whitch king, or taking on an Eowyn like role, Im gonna be pretty P-d off.