Why did the film show 🧝Arwen instead of Glorfindel?

[Talimon]

Originally posted by ReadWryt


I'm not saying that Female Roles in movies are bad things, but when there IS one in the story, by all means, include it. This particular movie has not become the box office success that it is because Jackson invented things outside of the character of Arwen to have Arwen do on screen, it has far more to do with the fact that "The Lord of the Rings" is one of the most popular and well loved books in the English Canon. Go back and look at what a popular movie "Gone with the Wind" was in it's day...the book was VERY well known, and by the time the movie came out everybody wanted to see it. Now, think about this... Assuming that the success of this movie is based upon the success of the Books, and assuming that by the time the next movie comes out most of these folks who went to see the first film will have read the second book and loved it, as tends to be the case, what do you suppose their reaction will be when they realize that Jackson has blown Arwen's role completely out of proportion, having her show up at Helms Deep and all. I think that in the long run Jackson is weakening his movie's popularity by doing this, not strengthening it. Oh wait..I didn't read this the first time around...So what you are saying is that Women have such short attention spans that when confronted with a lack of female characters they get bored and leave a movie, or perhaps what you mean is that when they hear about the book voted the most popular English Language Book of the past millenium being made into a movie, especially since I would bet you that MORE then half of the READERS of LotR are female, that when they hear that the roles are shown as they are in the book they would not want to see it?

That's obviously not my point. The book is about people, male or female. Everyone can relate to it. And books don't cost nearly as much money to make as movies do. If a book flops, oh well, another author. If a movie of this scale flops, a whole multi-million dollar studio goes under. I think that justifies what is essentially minor tampering with the editing process. Look, the Galadriel scenes were shot, they'll be released, people will see them and they will become part of the movie. For the theatrical version, however, it was cruicial that it sell well. There were two more movies on the line. So New Line did some editing on Galadriel and expanded Arwen.

While I've met people that have said the book is better, I haven't met anyone who's said the movie is bad. I don't know what the statistic is in terms of percentage of viewers who have read the book, but what I do know is that 90% of the reviews were by non-readers. This actually surprised me, considering that a journalist out of all people should have read the books. But what surprised me even more is that all these non-reader reviews were positive. Amazingly so, in fact. In a "A survey of 40 major critics, including those of The San Francisco Chronicle, New York Times and Los Angeles Times," Fellowship of the Ring got an 8.7 out of 10. The highest rating any movie got was a 9.3. But wait, this is even more important: It's the only "action" film in the top 10, let alone the only fantasy film. On top of that, it's the only film on the list that was nominated for an oscars (goes to show how accurate the oscars are). Maybe TTT will prove me terribly wrong, but considering that all of the actors from the set have said unanimously that its far better then FotR, both in terms of charachter development and battle scenes, that leaves me pretty optimistic.

Originally posted by ReadWryt


Truth to be told that had they NOT included the rediculousness with Arwen outside of Rivendel they would have had the time needed to show Galadriel bestowing the Gifts to the Fellowship, but obviously a rediculous chase on horseback to the Ford was more important to the integrety of the story...*sigh*

The truth is that the integrity of the story, and the popularity of it, has skyrocketed thanks to this movie. People point out the changes, but the fact is that PJ is more then aware of them. The fact that the movie is both entertaining and deep, for readers but especially for non-readers, is an amazing feat in my opinion.

 

[Wonko The Sane]

I agree with this Talimon person wholeheartedly.

 

[Parrot]

Posted by ReadWryt
This particular movie has not become the box office success that it is because Jackson invented things outside of the character of Arwen to have Arwen do on screen, it has far more to do with the fact that "The Lord of the Rings" is one of the most popular and well loved books in the English Canon.

This would also explain why Bakshi’s version based on the same book was such a financial blockbuster??!!! Proof positive that Jackson’s ability as a filmmaker is totally irrelevant.

Now, think about this... Assuming that the success of this movie is based upon the success of the Books, and assuming that by the time the next movie comes out most of these folks who went to see the first film will have read the second book and loved it, as tends to be the case, what do you suppose their reaction will be when they realize that Jackson has blown Arwen's role completely out of proportion, having her show up at Helms Deep and all. I think that in the long run Jackson is weakening his movie's popularity by doing this, not strengthening it.

Yes, lets do THINK about this. The progression, as I understand it, is people see the movie and like it so much that they are then inspired to read the books and then like the books so much that the changes made to a relatively minor character will put them off going to see the sequel to fantastic movie that inspired them to read the books in the first place????? I, for one, really doubt it. I think most people, especially those who weren’t into Tolkien before the movies, are latitudinarian enough to not get too hung up on comparing the two, and are able to judge them on their own merits. This is also completely ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people who see the movie will NEVER read the books and could give a Gaffer’s damn what they say.

The essence of the LOVE STORY (the real key rather than the simple “female lead”) is presented in the books but is seriously underdeveloped. For Jackson not to have enhanced this plotline and strengthen HIS film’s appeal to that particular audience demographic would have bordered on criminal in regard to his fiduciary responsibility towards New Line and their multi-hundred-million investment (gamble?) as well as his own self-interest. This was a simple cost-benefit decision and a no-brainer “in the long run”. He risked incurring the wrath of a relative few Tolkien purists in order to snare the million of $fRs ($uckers for Romance) who’s repeat (and repeat and repeat and re…) business made a marginal movie like Titanic one of the all-time grossers. I’m fairrrly sure PJ’s NOT kicking himself in the ass right now (what with all those New Line execs back there kissing it, he’d probably have to take a number to get anywhere near it).

 

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Parrot

The essence of the LOVE STORY (the real key rather than the simple “female lead”) is presented in the books but is seriously underdeveloped. For Jackson not to have enhanced this plotline and strengthen HIS film’s appeal to that particular audience demographic would have bordered on criminal in regard to his fiduciary responsibility towards New Line and their multi-hundred-million investment (gamble?) as well as his own self-interest. This was a simple cost-benefit decision and a no-brainer “in the long run”. He risked incurring the wrath of a relative few Tolkien purists in order to snare the million of $fRs ($uckers for Romance) who’s repeat (and repeat and repeat and re…) business made a marginal movie like Titanic one of the all-time grossers. I’m fairrrly sure PJ’s NOT kicking himself in the ass right now (what with all those New Line execs back there kissing it, he’d probably have to take a number to get anywhere near it).

The fact that the romance will make PJ and New Line money is obvious, but personally I would also like to defend the creative decision for it's own merits. The fact is, if the Arwen/Aragorn romance is worked out well, it will make the movie much better (at least in my opinion). I doubt FotR has made the money it has because of it's sparse romance elements. I think Jackson's decision to include more of Arwen has creative merit.

 

[Parrot]

I would agree with all of that Talimon. I think the underdevelopment of the character of Arwen is one of the only major shortcomings of LOTR. My statements were a rebuttal to RW who seemed to be implying that this was both a poor creative and business decision.

I doubt FotR has made the money it has because of it's sparse romance elements.

This was obviously not at all my point, as I think you fully understood. My point is that from a purely analytical standpoint, creative merits aside, the potential returns from this type of enhancement far outweighed the risks, nothing more.

 

[ReadWryt]

Perhaps that is my problem...I forgot that the movie is a Love Story and not the Mythic Adventure that I thought it was going to be. I guess I'm way too picky about things like 12 Characters getting altered dramatically with the shooting of the one scene at the Ford to appreciate the fact that audiences would turn away from a movie because it didn't have much of a love interest. Why, I can remember the finacial backlash that caused "The Phantom Menace" to crater at the boxoffice once all the cries of Racism over the Jar Jar Binks character came out, so I really should have been more mindful of the kind of trouble that feminists would have caused had Arwen just been portrayed as she had been in the book...Sarcasm? Yer soaking in it!

 

[Wonko The Sane]

I don't know if that was so much sarcasm as it was nastiness.

I agree with Parrot and Talimon.

I'd put in my two cents but they've said all that I would have said in their place.

The only thing that I have to add is that RW is giving the masses too much credit.

Romance sells. Parrot is right. They will keep coming back.

 

[Thorin]

RW is right and his sarcasm is warranted.

Please folks...Can you honestly say that LoTR was actually bolstered by the romance scenes? I didn't have a problem with PJ sticking that in and making the appendix as part of the story....Considering the fact that LoTR is not a romance but an action, good vs evil special effects epic, the little romance that was in did virtually nothing for the story except to show the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen....that's it. It added almost nothing to the story and I'm sure most people were waiting for the action....I know I was, not because I hated the romantic scenes, but because LoTR is not a romantic movie...Get it over with and get on with what the movie really deals with....

In my opinion, you'd have to be pretty shallow to go and see TTT and RoTK just for the romantic part....The romance is insignificant because that is not what LoTR is about....I think the little bit that PJ stuck in shows that he would agree, though he felt that it was important to show Aragorn and Arwen's relationship.

It was a nice flavor but I highly doubt it had anything to do with LoTR's success, or that it will be a drawing factor for the next two movies....

 

[Wonko The Sane]

I agree that people are not going to go see tTT and RotK for the romance.
And for the most part the people who saw LotR mulitple times did it becuase they were already great Tolkien fans and just loved the movies.
My brother wonko saw the thing 5 times...

The point is that by adding the romance it appeals to a broader audience.
A lot of females, and I know this is bad to say but I'm female so I'll say it dagnabbit, a lot of females will not sit through a movie that's primarily action without a few softer moments now and then.
The Aragorn/Arwen thing was NOT a huge part of the movie, it was almost an afterthought.

People aren't going to go see the movies because of the romance. They'll go see it because they're LotR fans or because they liked the first movie, read the books, and now want to see the second movie.
But the romance rounds out the story.
A flat action film, while often wildly successful, generally appeals mainly to men.
And they did mention that over 50% of the audience of LotR was female.
I'd say that the romance section is a good addition.

 

[Parrot]

Ohhh, I'm soaking in something all right.....

Originally Posted by ReadWryt
Why, I can remember the finacial backlash that caused "The Phantom Menace" to crater at the boxoffice once all the cries of Racism over the Jar Jar Binks character came out, so I really should have been more mindful of the kind of trouble that feminists would have caused had Arwen just been portrayed as she had been in the book...Sarcasm? Yer soaking in it!

Huhwhat…??? Did I mention feminists? Or any backlash from anyone?? Anyone? Buehler? Anyone? Frye? Anyone?
If “broadening your audience” and “avoiding angry backlash (paraphrased)” are suddenly synonymous, I didn’t get the memo. That withering sarcasm would "soak" a lot more if it actually pertained to anything I posted, but hey as long as you're having fun, you just go on with your bad self....

Thorin, your point that the romance is not a major selling point is well taken (though I for one never said it was). As Wonko the Sane says, the extra flavor does not hurt the movie either and PJ would have been foolish not to make some effort in this area; my point from the get-go. Your point that RW is "right" is not so well taken as these are subjective matters of opinion to which we are all entitled, or maybe I just don't get the concept behind a discussion forum?

 

[Samwise_hero]

I think it should have been Glorfindel as well, putting Arwen there just took it away from the real story. but peter jackson did say he wanted it different to the book. (i heard it on a documentary)

 

[ReadWryt]

...I would LOVE to see the demographics of the people who paid to see this movie, if for no other reason then to see how many of the Asian, African American and Hispanic people so blatantly left out of the “broadening your audience” campaign of Jackson's saw the film...

 

[Parrot]

Okay, you got me this time! I have no idea how to respond to that post.

 

[Wonko The Sane]

I do.

With the exception of the men from Harad there was primarily one race of men in ME. They were white. The hobbits were white. The elves were white.
Not only that but they were primarily of what we would call "British" culture by real world standards.
The book was crafted to appeal to all audiences, regardless of race.
The issue is that men of all races will be attracted to the action portion of the movie.
Adding the romance bit broadened it to women of all race.
You're making this a race issue where there should be non, RW. It's a human issue. Men and women are the only subcategories in question here.

And Parrot is completely correct. We did not mention "angry backlash" from feminists or ANYBODY. This isn't a political issue. It's a cinematographical and literary issue.

Oh, and everything Parrot said in his last post was 100% correct.

 

[Captain Sparky]

Originally posted by Greenwood


And Tolkien first named Frodo Bingo and had Aragorn a hobbit called Trotter.

And your point is......?

 

[aragil]

I think that GW (or just 'dubya' as I like to call him) was saying that we should judge the film more by what will be put in it rather than what PJ was thinking of doing.

 

[Talimon]

Deffinitely.

 

[Wonko The Sane]

Which is my point as well...
Although RW doesn't seem to make that clear.
He seems to want to cloud the real issue with other things that our society is all too quick to latch onto in any given circumstance.

 

[Talimon]

What are you talking about Wonko?

 

[Wonko The Sane]

I don't remember.
Perhaps we should change the subject...

(I meant that jumping onto issues such as demographic, race, and gender are really easy to do in todays PC driven society.)