Do you believe it was reasonable for Arwen to take Glorfindel's place?

[Edena_of_Neith]

I'm asking ...

Was it reasonable for Arwen to take Glorfindel's place, as Elrond's champion on the Great Road against the Nine, in search of the Ring-Bearer?
I am, of course, referring to this replacement as made by Peter Jackson in his Fellowship of the Ring.

Was it reasonable? If you say yes, then why? If you say no, then why?

[Ergeheilalt]

Yes, it was reasonable since Glorfindel would just have been another tiny character in an already huge cast of characters.

[The Winslow]

Yeah, one less pointless character and a more active role for one of the women of the cast which makes it more in tune with modern sensibilities.

You can argue that it's not faithful to the original text (indeed, but no adaptation ever is), or that these reasons are misguided, or whatever; but it was a reasonable thing to do for the filmmakers.

[Name Lips]

It was a necessary change because it was a different storytelling medium. Movies that introduce minor characters who get a 5 minute scene and then vanish forever aren't generally good movies.

[Lmik]

Peter Jackson is a New Zealander and the film was made in New Zealand and therefore nothing can possibly be wrong with the films (did I mention that I was part of the sounds effects for Return of the King - they came to one of the Rugby games at our stadium and recorded the crowd doing battle chants).

[Singularity]

Is Chewbacca from Endor? No, that doesn't make sense, how can Chewbacca be from Endor? If Chewbacca isn't from Endor, you must acquit.

Case dismissed.

[Edena_of_Neith]

Very well.
If Arwen was so capable, why not send her with the Fellowship?

Peter Jackson was going to do just that with Arwen. Would you have supported this?

[Scarbonac]

Very well.
If Arwen was so capable, why not send her with the Fellowship?

Peter Jackson was going to do just that with Arwen. Would you have supported this?

Fuck no: Jackson had already devoted too much of the movies to the dopey love-story between Arwen and Strider. Making her a part of the Fellowship would probably further derailed Tolkien's saga and distracted even more attention from the real heroes of LotR, the Hobbits.

Bad enough that he fucked up Faramir's character, cut out both Tom Bombadil and The Scouring Of The Shire, but adding more fucking Arwen, the most useless and footnote-able character in all of The Professor's writings, would have caused me to hunt his ass down, shoot him in both knees and smash his glasses*.








*With a baseball bat while they're still on his fat face.


[Edit: This is my 666th post. Yay me.]

[Edena_of_Neith]

Then why didn't you vote No, above?

It is a legitimate question. Arwen, appearing - period - in a combat situation, greatly altered Tolkien's characters and background. You do realize this?

[Name Lips]

If you think Arwen showing a bit of competance was enough to maybe include her in the fellowship, why aren't you complaining that Tolkein didn't have Glorfindel join the fellowship?

Apparantly the small act of rescuing Frodo from the Nazgul wasn't enough to qualify either one of them. I don't really see any inconsistancy.

[Ergeheilalt]

If you think Arwen showing a bit of competance was enough to maybe include her in the fellowship, why aren't you complaining that Tolkein didn't have Glorfindel join the fellowship?

Apparantly the small act of rescuing Frodo from the Nazgul wasn't enough to qualify either one of them. I don't really see any inconsistancy.

PWNED!

[Singularity]

You know that the next one of these topics is going to have something to do with Tom Bombadill's lack of inclusion, wringwraiths, whether or not Sam and Frodo were secretly gay, and something about ass raping pirates and a 162nd level cleric.

Enough already. The movies were reasonably similar to the books, they were highly entertaining, and as of now, they're the best fantasy movies ever made.

[Name Lips]

whether or not Sam and Frodo were secretly gay,
What, as opposed to being openly gay? :tongue:

[FeatsofClay]

Sometimes I am very grateful to have arrived at gaming through Conan and Thor instead of Tolkien.

:tongue:

[Edena_of_Neith]

I say: If you think having Arwen rescuing Frodo was ok, then having Arwen in the Fellowship is ok also.
You, of course, will disagree. But ... consider!

In the book, Glorfindel had the following to say to Aragorn, as they walked towards Rivendell (paraphrasing)

'Knowing that you were bearing a great burden without guidance, Elrond sent rescuers out. There are few even in Rivendell who can stand against the Nine, but such as there were, he sent out north, west, and south. My part was to take to the Great Road. I came upon three of the Ringwraiths at the Bridge, and I drove them off, pursued them westward. I found your path, marked where it left the Road, and continued on knowing you would ultimately return to the Road. And I found you.'

Now, if Elrond sent Arwen in Glorfindel's place, then Elrond probably said the following, to her and to others:

'Frodo is out there, bearing a burden of incredible importance to us all, the fate of Middle Earth hanging in the balance. Sauron's Nine, his greatest champions, seek for Frodo. We must find and rescue him. Now, I know that there are few even amongst us who can give battle to the Nine, but such as there are, I am sending forth north, south, and west to find Frodo.
And you, my daughter, my greatest champion, I send alone on the most perilous path of all, to take the Great Road. It is likely the Nine will be on that road, and so you shall give battle to them, and drive them away, and Elbereth smile on you in your efforts to find Frodo. My other champions, including Glorfindel, will take the other ways. Now, forth, and find Frodo!'

If Elrond said this, then that represents a COLOSSAL shift from the Elrond created by Tolkien (Tolkien, a man of the Old World, would have fainted at the prospect of Elrond sending Arwen out alone against the Nine, or someone interpreting him and her thus.)
If Elrond believes it is ok to send his one and only daughter out, alone, against the Nine, then it is certainly ok to send her with Frodo in the Fellowship!!

I mean hey, it's only the NINE we are talking about, and Arwen alone against them (and against whatever else was out there, including orcs, wargs, trolls, and whatever else was wandering in the perilous wilderness.)
If Glorfindel had to give battle to three of them at the Bridge, then Arwen did too. And if Glorfindel won that battle, Arwen did too. If Glorfindel was ready to take on the Lord of the Ringwraiths, Arwen was too.

And if Elrond was willing to send his daughter into that kind of danger, he would not have had a problem sending her with the Fellowship.

[Edena_of_Neith]

(regards the above posts)

Yes, that's right. You voted Yes. So, you obviously think Arwen should have been in the Fellowship!
Guilty as charged! Burned! :)

[Edena_of_Neith]

If you think Arwen showing a bit of competance was enough to maybe include her in the fellowship, why aren't you complaining that Tolkein didn't have Glorfindel join the fellowship?

Apparantly the small act of rescuing Frodo from the Nazgul wasn't enough to qualify either one of them. I don't really see any inconsistancy.

It's not my fault Elrond chose 9 Walkers, and let Gandalf talk him into not including Glorfindel.
Elrond should have sent Glorfindel in addition to the other nine who went.

[Edena_of_Neith]

You know that the next one of these topics is going to have something to do with Tom Bombadill's lack of inclusion, wringwraiths, whether or not Sam and Frodo were secretly gay, and something about ass raping pirates and a 162nd level cleric.

Enough already. The movies were reasonably similar to the books, they were highly entertaining, and as of now, they're the best fantasy movies ever made.

(regards you with a smirk)

As I said, you voted Yes.
So obviously, Singularity, you believe Arwen should have been in the Fellowship.
If you wish to deny this, then why did you vote Yes? If she is competent enough for the one, how is she not competent for the other?

If you are going to endorse Peter Jackson's desecration of Tolkien's conceptualization, then why not desecrate it further, and let Arwen go with the Fellowship?

[Singularity]

As I said, you voted Yes.
So obviously, Singularity, you believe Arwen should have been in the Fellowship.
If you wish to deny this, then why did you vote Yes? If she is competent enough for the one, how is she not competent for the other?

If you are going to endorse Peter Jackson's desecration of Tolkien's conceptualization, then why not desecrate it further, and let Arwen go with the Fellowship?

Dude, not only do I think it would have been acceptable for Arwen to be in the Fellowship, if that's what Peter Jackson would have wanted, but it would have also been perfectly acceptable for her to have been naked the whole time and letting the hobbits, all four of them, bugger her at will. Yes, naked, even in the snowy mountains, and hobbit buggering.

Not only that, but she should have been Gandalf buggering too, because if there's anyone in Middle Earth who deserves to bugger somebody, it's Gandalf - not that the actor would have enjoyed it, because he would have wanted into that whole Sam and Frodo thing.

Oh, and Sauron should have been played by Kathleen Turner.

[Edena_of_Neith]

Dude, not only do I think it would have been acceptable for Arwen to be in the Fellowship, if that's what Peter Jackson would have wanted, but it would have also been perfectly acceptable for her to have been naked the whole time and letting the hobbits, all four of them, bugger her at will. Yes, naked, even in the snowy mountains, and hobbit buggering.

Not only that, but she should have been Gandalf buggering too, because if there's anyone in Middle Earth who deserves to bugger somebody, it's Gandalf - not that the actor would have enjoyed it, because he would have wanted into that whole Sam and Frodo thing.

Oh, and Sauron should have been played by Kathleen Turner.

What's your point? (If Jackson had done such ridiculous things, his films would have failed. Pretty obvious, that.)

[Singularity]

What's your point? (If Jackson had done such ridiculous things, his films would have failed. Pretty obvious, that.)

No, it wouldn't have failed. It would have been fucking awesome. They still would have been the best fantasy movies ever made, and they still would have been Lord of the Rings.

Arwen love for all!

[Edena_of_Neith]

LOL

Now, if Arwen had that Nymph's Aura spell (don't ask) then maybe she could have won the War of the Ring singlehandedly ...

[Scarbonac]

Then why didn't you vote No, above?

It is a legitimate question. Arwen, appearing - period - in a combat situation, greatly altered Tolkien's characters and background. You do realize this?

Look; she was inserted so as to establish that she's reallyreally in the story, even though she really wasn't. It kept her from just totally being the Token Reward Princess and helped cement her position as Love Interest and Competent Female-Identifiable Character ("Oooo, look, she saved Frito! Huzzah, she digs the Sweaty Hero and is a positive & active Role-Model for Teh Gurls!").

Yeah, she summoned magic water-horsies and then run away with Frodo to freakin Rivendel, assuming Glorfindel's admittedly minor role, yeah, I can accept that, but taking her along on the quest?

Just no -- besides, Elrond would have probably cut off her feet to keep her home and away from that smelly Ilúvatar-damned Ranger.

[Dacke]

Glorfindel, or Arwen, would on one level have made a great addition to the party. But we don't want a party that's too big, on account of stealthiness being the main weapon that can work against Sauron - you can't take him on directly, so you have to avoid his attention.

So they limited the party size to nine. The damn hobbits wouldn't split up, so they eat up four slots already. Gandalf is a given, as is Aragorn as the Guy Who's Not King Yet. Add one representative of each of the Free Races: Boromir the Man, Legolas the Elf, and Gimli the Comic Relief. Party's full.

I guess you could have replaced Legolas with Arwen/Glorfindel though.

Oh, and you can always read Arwen's diary (http://www.ealasaid.com/misc/vsd/arwen.html).

[Edena_of_Neith]

(chuckles)

Indeed so. Elrond wanted secrecy and stealth. So did most of the others.
Too bad nobody told Pippin the news (I'll just drop stones down wells, to hear the nice sound they make ...)

[Northcott]

Yeah, one less pointless character and a more active role for one of the women of the cast which makes it more in tune with modern sensibilities.

That's precisely why I thought her re-write in the movie sucked. Modern sensibilities can go fuck themselves. More politically-correct masturbation for the bleeding heart crowd. <-- ennui, not anger. Seriously.

I'm sick of people needing to rewrite chunks of our past so they don't feel all squeemish about it. Fucking weak. It basically flips the bird to those who did rise above the challenges to change history against the odds. Part of what makes Eleanor of Aquitaine so damned astounding is that she pulled off the amazing things she did (essentially changing the course of western civilization), and did it as a woman in a time where the odds were massively stacked against her.

In the LotR, that woman was Eowyn. She rocked the book as the sole female character who bucked against all societal moores to take on a challenge that she was told was not suitable for her gender, and then accomplished remarkable things. In the movies, she's fantasy sword chick #2. And a second-rate one, compared to the skinny supermodel with Teh Magick Pwrz!

[The Winslow]

You can argue that it's not faithful to the original text (indeed, but no adaptation ever is), or that these reasons are misguided, or whatever; but it was a reasonable thing to do for the filmmakers.

Indeed, there are many things I did not like in the adaptation -- though not enough to make me hate the movies -- but I could always see the rational behind it and how, from the point of view of the movie makers, it was the soundest thing to do. Eowyn was a loser anyway since she didn't get her man. :grey:

[Edena_of_Neith]

Ok, let me put my take into this:

I do not believe it is a matter of Political Correctness to allow Arwen to go with the Fellowship.
It is a simple matter that Arwen was capable and competent to go. She was capable and competent, or Elrond would never have sent her out on the Great Road against the Nine, and she would not have been victorious against them on the Bridge (implied.)

It is, however, a desecration of Tolkien's works, because the idea of Arwen going with the Fellowship is very much different from Tolkien's conception, and anaethema to his way of thinking.

Would it have been entertaining for me? Yes.
Would I have granted that Jackson was being true to Tolkien? No.

So, it is both ways here.
It is patently obvious that Arwen was capable of going, just as Glorfindel was capable of going.
But would Tolkien have wanted that? No. He would have fainted at the idea.

-

Scarbonac, I *appreciate* that Jackson replaced Glorfindel with Arwen for reasons of convenience.
But that still does not mitigate things. Jackson made a major change in Tolkien's story, characters, and the thinking of the Noldor, with that 'minor' change, and (as you should appreciate, of all people) those who know Tolkien's works well know that this completely alters the Professor's creation.
Those not familiar with Tolkien won't see the difference. But we will.

I mean, it's like it's raining and at 33 degrees (1 celsius). Then the temperature drops to 31 (-1 celsius), and it keeps raining. Only a minor 2 degree difference ... but tell that to anyone who has been caught in an icestorm.

And heck, Arwen caught Aragorn completely off-guard, put her sword (the blunt edge) to his throat.
Completely take ARAGORN off-guard, to the point of slitting his throat before he could react? That's no small feat!
Perhaps Jackson was being cutesy. But if taken at face value, ANYONE who could take Aragorn off-guard like that, was capable indeed.

[Name Lips]

Like I said though, Glorfindel didn't get nominated for the Fellowship either. That mission wasn't enough to qualify anybody.

[Dacke]

A thought.

Lots of magic in Middle-Earth is site-based. Tom Bombadil is the prime example (who could probably hold Sauron himself off from his little corner of the world), but Lothlorien and Rivendell are also places of power. Arwen has lived most of her life in Rivendell (I think she spent some time in Lothlorien as well), so she would have had a significant home-field advantage against the Riders, allowing her to best them. That's not an advantage she would have had if going out to protect the Ring-Bearer.

[Northcott]

A thought.

Lots of magic in Middle-Earth is site-based. Tom Bombadil is the prime example (who could probably hold Sauron himself off from his little corner of the world), but Lothlorien and Rivendell are also places of power. Arwen has lived most of her life in Rivendell (I think she spent some time in Lothlorien as well), so she would have had a significant home-field advantage against the Riders, allowing her to best them. That's not an advantage she would have had if going out to protect the Ring-Bearer.

In Bombadil's case, that was because of his nature; there was an undefined relationship between he and the land. In the case of Rivendell and Lothlorien, it was because Elrond and Galadriel were bearing funky jewellery -- two of the three rings made for elven kings. Those had great power, and because they were rulers of lands, affected those lands by virtue of the bond between ruler and domain.

[Dacke]

Sure, the relationship between Elrond and Rivendell was at least partially due to his Ring. But even so, I figure that relationship had to take a while to build up, so Elrond in Gondor or Mordor would be significantly less badass than Elrond in Rivendell, even with the Ring. The same would go for other people too, to a lesser extent (the bond between ruler and domain is probably stronger than between ruler's daughter and domain).

[The Winslow]

And likewise, Sauron with the One Ring in Mordor would be significantly more badass than Frodo with the One Ring in Mordor.

[Ancalagon]

Hello

I really don't object with replacing Glorfindel with Arwen - as many has said, there were a *lot* of characters in the movie already. What I DID object to was the changing of the scene.

So if say, Arwen had done the same stuff that Glorfindel would have done in the book (and it was reasonably heroic), that would have been fine. But by changing the ford crossing scene... I think it damaged the story a bit. Frodo, at the ford, challenged the ring wraiths on his own - he had the courage to stand up to them. By having Arwen stand up to them for Frodo... it changed things.

Ancalagon

[Northcott]

Hello

I really don't object with replacing Glorfindel with Arwen - as many has said, there were a *lot* of characters in the movie already. What I DID object to was the changing of the scene.

So if say, Arwen had done the same stuff that Glorfindel would have done in the book (and it was reasonably heroic), that would have been fine. But by changing the ford crossing scene... I think it damaged the story a bit. Frodo, at the ford, challenged the ring wraiths on his own - he had the courage to stand up to them. By having Arwen stand up to them for Frodo... it changed things.

Ancalagon


Also an excellent point.

I think at this point, it is safe to say that the Crossing of the Ford scene was far superior in Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings. :D

[The Winslow]

How could you say that? Everyone in their right mind knows that, albeit it is still flawed, it is Ralph Bakshi's rendition of the scene of the Crossing of the Ford that was by far the better of the two.

[Name Lips]

No, no, Han shot first.

[Snatch]

I'm sick of people needing to rewrite chunks of our past so they don't feel all squeemish about it.

Uhhh...LotR is fiction right?

[The Winslow]

Uhhh...LotR is fiction right?

I wonder why there aren't more Tolkien fundamentalists, claiming that the Silmarillion is the literal word of god, and all that jazz. Tolkien was a better writer than L. Ron Hubbard, LotR is certainly more internally-consistent than the Bible, and it's supposed to be the past of the Earth after all.

[obryn]

I wonder why there aren't more Tolkien fundamentalists, claiming that the Silmarillion is the literal word of god, and all that jazz. Tolkien was a better writer than L. Ron Hubbard, LotR is certainly more internally-consistent than the Bible, and it's supposed to be the past of the Earth after all.
Illuvatar would frown on this post.

In Manwe's name,

-O

[Alpha Ralpha]

Why didn't Gandalf just take up the Ring while it was in the envelope, hitch a ride on his Giant Eagle buddy, fly real high up over Mordor and then dive bomb/drop Gandalf into Mt. Doom where he pitches the Ring into the lava? end of story ...

real short book and even shorter movie that way...

[Singularity]

Why didn't Gandalf just take up the Ring while it was in the envelope, hitch a ride on his Giant Eagle buddy, fly real high up over Mordor and then dive bomb/drop Gandalf into Mt. Doom where he pitches the Ring into the lava? end of story ...

real short book and even shorter movie that way...

Because he's human, and humans aren't resistant to ring's power. He would have been tempted to put it on, and then he would have put it on, and then he would have laid waste to Sauron himself and conquered all of Middle Earth. It was inevitable, which is why he turned down the ring when it was offered to him.

But that did make for a nifty animated image.

[Ancalagon]

and if say, you had trained frodo to fly giant eagles... unless there was a *huge* distraction, Sauron would have sensed the ring coming to him, and sent Nazguls on flying creatures to intercept or something.

[Dacke]

Because he's human, and humans aren't resistant to ring's power. He would have been tempted to put it on, and then he would have put it on, and then he would have laid waste to Sauron himself and conquered all of Middle Earth. It was inevitable, which is why he turned down the ring when it was offered to him.
A maia, not a human. But the rest is right.

[The Wanderer]

look gandalf even says that he dare not take for he might be tempted to use the ring and with his power that would not be a pretty site.

[Dr. Paragon]

What always amuses me about the LOTR book purist VS LOTR movie
arguments is that if the books had been word for word translated into
a film series they would be musicals that had lots of zoom and pan
shots of folliage and backgrounds. The man was the genesis in a lot
of ways for "modern fantasy", but by Eru he like Lovecraft were
terrible about not getting down to business. I realise he was penning
his fantasy for his mind and I am okay with it for the most part.
But my mind is not his, and while I will forever be thankful for his
genius at times his writing reminds me of Stoker's where half way
through the story it's like "Enough about the fucking landscape!
Just tell me what the characters do next!"

That's my two cents.

[Edena_of_Neith]

Gandalf was bound by the rules set forth for the Valar and their underlings.
It is specifically implied that the Valar and those with them - Gandalf included - could not directly destroy the Ring, by the rules. It was not their place to do so.
The Children of the One had to make that decision, and carry it out. Gandalf could help, he could encourage, but he could not do it for them.

Elrond said as much, really. He said that if the Ring was sent overseas to Valinor, it would simply be sent back. This was a matter out of the hands of the Valar, by the will of Eru, and had to be dealt with by the peoples of Middle Earth.

And that is why Gandalf did not do this.

Disobeying the rules, even for the supposed good (such as, the good of the people of Middle Earth, by destroying the Ring), always lead to evil. Thus, Saruon and later Saruman fell, because they wanted to do good, and thought it was ok to break the rules set forth by the One to do so.

[Dr. Paragon]

Where do you get the idea that Sauron ever ment well.
Melkor had him walking the dark road from nearly the beginning.
Saruman, was driven by ambition as well. They were not fooled
into there paths. They chose them freely.

[Edena_of_Neith]

Gandalf said so. He said that even Sauron was not evil at the beginning.
Saruman? He was sent directly by Manwe, Lord of the Valar, to give aid to the peoples of Middle Earth against Sauron, along with Gandalf and the other Istari. Manwe would have sent a good being, obviously.

Tolkien was very big about Obedience to the One (Eru.)
It was not enough just to obey the Laws set forth by the One. It was necessary to obey them *joyfully* and in full *faith.* Simply obeying them, just for the sake of obeying them ('well, I'll just do it because I like obeying rules') was the first step towards falling. Obeying them out of fear was the second step towards falling. Covert disobedience was next, then open disobedience, then full scale mutiny.
(I must pity Amandil. He had to plead the case of the Faithful among the Numenorians to the Valar. Trust me, they were not happy beings to deal with, at that point. Mandos, in particular, probably had a few unkindly things to say. And Amandil, never came back or was heard from again.)

[AZRogue]

I voted no. I would have voted "FUCK NO!" but didn't see it as an option.

Glorfindel was an important character (to me) because he was an elven lord and he completely captured my attention as a child reading the books for the first time. He was one of the most powerful elven lords as shown by Glorfindel's statement:

"There are few even in Rivendell that can ride openly against the Nine; but such as there were, Elrond sent out north, west, and south. It was thought that you might turn far aside to avoid pursuit, and becoming lost in the Wilderness."

Glorfindel was powerful enough to ride openly against the Nine--one of the few opportunities for the audience to see an elven lord at work--and demonstrated this when he "uncloaked" himself and revealed his power which terrified the Nine and drove them into the river. There aren't many other opportunities to show an elven lord at work and I feel they should have taken that one instead of trying to give Arwen some screen time that she neither needed, deserved, or could properly make use of.

As for Arwen being added because they needed a stronger female role for the story, bullshit. The story was what it was and the LAST reason to change it is for political correctness or to please a certain segment of the audience. That's ridiculous and, frankly, insulting. Cowardice, if I wanted to be kind.

As a matter of fact, having her there at the river (and then the idiotic fact that she called the river to defend her and Frodo) completely ruins an important oportunity for Frodo's character to develop a bit. Frodo actually tries to stand up against the Riders' influence and yells at them to "go back!", a very heroic thing when he is so obviously terrified. Instead he is just a sack of grain thrown across Arwen's horse and the misguided Peter Jackson gave this bit-character the chance to show some heroism instead of the protaganist. It's not like Frodo had many opportunities to act heroic through the series, and this was one of the most important initial ones that let the readers know that the little hobbit had more heart and will than people wanted to give him credit for.

So, no, I don't think it was reasonable. I think it was short sighted and a mistake and hurt the story being told. But, hey, he was bound to change some things. When you aren't actually creative yourself, you kind of have to muck around with the work of other people so that you can pretend that you are. Just ask Peter Jackson.

[Edena_of_Neith]

I voted no. I would have voted "FUCK NO!" but didn't see it as an option.

Glorfindel was an important character (to me) because he was an elven lord and he completely captured my attention as a child reading the books for the first time. He was one of the most powerful elven lords as shown by Glorfindel's statement:

"There are few even in Rivendell that can ride openly against the Nine; but such as there were, Elrond sent out north, west, and south. It was thought that you might turn far aside to avoid pursuit, and becoming lost in the Wilderness."

Ah yes, this gets to my point.
Glorfindel had all this great power. He was Rivendell's greatest champion, except for Elrond himself. So he was the one who got the most perilous task; to openly confront the Nine on the Road.
By substituting Arwen, Peter Jackson made the point that ARWEN was as powerful and competent as Glorfindel, and accomplished all of the same things Glorfindel accomplished - such as driving the Ringwraiths from the Bridge of Mithedil and chasing them westward.
He made the point that Arwen must have had such power, for Elrond to entrust such a mission to his one and only daughter, sent alone on this perilous and crucial task.
And he made the point that Elrond, the loving father, was willing to send his daughter alone against the Nine.
These are not minor changes to Tolkien's works. They are very major. Tolkien's reaction to these changes? He would have fainted.


Glorfindel was powerful enough to ride openly against the Nine--one of the few opportunities for the audience to see an elven lord at work--and demonstrated this when he "uncloaked" himself and revealed his power which terrified the Nine and drove them into the river. There aren't many other opportunities to show an elven lord at work and I feel they should have taken that one instead of trying to give Arwen some screen time that she neither needed, deserved, or could properly make use of.

We see this aura from Arwen. Frodo - partially under the influence of the wound - sees it very clearly. So Arwen shines with the power, that was revealed in Glorfindel.


As a matter of fact, having her there at the river (and then the idiotic fact that she called the river to defend her and Frodo) completely ruins an important oportunity for Frodo's character to develop a bit. Frodo actually tries to stand up against the Riders' influence and yells at them to "go back!", a very heroic thing when he is so obviously terrified. Instead he is just a sack of grain thrown across Arwen's horse and the misguided Peter Jackson gave this bit-character the chance to show some heroism instead of the protaganist. It's not like Frodo had many opportunities to act heroic through the series, and this was one of the most important initial ones that let the readers know that the little hobbit had more heart and will than people wanted to give him credit for.

It is true that Frodo's heroism and last stand (as it were) against the Nine are lost.
Yet consider what would have happened, with Arwen substituted and the ending as per the book otherwise. It would be Aragorn and Arwen charging the Ringwraiths, Arwen revealed in her wrath, and the Ringwraiths - terrified and dismayed - rushing into the river rather than confronting her.
I could enjoy such a storyline - I happen to think Arwen was up to the task of standing in Glorfindel's shoes. But I doubt many would agree with me.

[AZRogue]

I could have more easilly forgiven Arwen filling Glorfindel's shoes--if she would have only done those things that Glorfindel did. I wouldn't have like it much, and would have loathed the fact that she was added only to make another strong female character (sorry, I just threw up in my mouth a bit thinking of such a horrible reason to exclude a very memorable character), but I could have lived with it.

But to not allow Frodo, the primary protaganist of the story, to make his stand and resist the Riders even at the end of his strength is just ... ridiculous. Bad story telling.

[Alpha Ralpha]

look gandalf even says that he dare not take for he might be tempted to use the ring and with his power that would not be a pretty site.

Then have Mr. Eagle fly Frodo and Sam down there so they can do the throwing/destroying the Ring part.

As far as Sauron detecting the Ring on its way, that's total BS. All of those months and all that time that Frodo and Fellowship moving the Ring closer but Sauron never knows it, never sends a strike team to get it after the Nine failed but now you say that Frodo can not fly for a speed advantage? :rolleyes:

It would have taken weeks, maybe more for Frodo and and Sam to cross the Plains of Morgoth (sp?) to reach Mt. Doom, yet Sauron never detects them until its too late. It would have taken much longer to move an army from Gondor to the Black Gates so Jackson's futzing with the timelines was silly and unbelievable with Strider suggesting that they take the remnants of their army to the Black Gates as a distraction to help Frodo.

If the Eagles cross the mountains well to the east of the Black Gate then loop around to approach Mt. Doom from the south while flying at extreme altitudes, until the last Stuka dive onto the slopes of Mt. Doom then the Nazgul will barely have time to run to their lizard mounts, much less scramble to intercept.

Frodo at this point had only barely used the Ring so it would not have had a lot of time to corrupt him but you would not send him alone. Sending Aragorn or someone to make sure the Ring is destroyed even if it means sacrificing Frodo would be a must.

[Harry]

Meh, meh, meh....

These arguments never take into account literary need, what it takes to tell a good story. May as well say that Ludlum's entire Bourne series was unnecessary because all Bourne had to do in the first place was see a good head doctor.

[Alpha Ralpha]

BTW, I voted yes - simply because it ultimately was PJ's movie. He made choices such as focusing on Arwen and turning her into a major character, leaving out Tom Bombadil almost entirely (except for a recreation of the Old Man Willow part with the Ents), futzed around with the timelines, switched lines between characters, etc. etc.

Two things - One: you can't really film a movie directly from a book like that, though some have tried. Two: ultimately is up to the director of the movie to make his(or her) own movie.

I don't let Tom Bombadil's exclusion dilute my enjoyment of the movies, if you want to let something like the changes to Arwen's role kill your enjoyment of the movies, well then there ya go...

[Name Lips]

Two things - One: you can't really film a movie directly from a book like that, though some have tried. I'll go a step further and say that a movie that's made 100% true to a book will probably not be a good movie, no matter how good the book was.

Just like book adaptations of good movies are generally shit.

[Snatch]

I don't let Tom Bombadil's exclusion dilute my enjoyment of the movies, if you want to let something like the changes to Arwen's role kill your enjoyment of the movies, well then there ya go...

Ditto. Which is why I don't get involved with these discussions. Everyone has their own preference.

Personally I find the movies incredibly entertaining and appreciate them as much as I appreciate the book.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Elrond and Gandalf couldn't send Glorfindle because the whole mission depended on stealth and Misdirection. Glorfindle, being one of the most powerful elves left in Middle Earth (probably third behind Galadriel and Elrond), would have lit up like a Christmas tree from Sauron's perspective and given the game away.

As for Elrond's preparedness to risk his children, he sent his twin sons out to join the Battle of the Pelanor fields and regularly sent them on dangerous missions before that. His protectiveness of Arwen was pure Tolkeing sexism. if you remove that, then there is no reason for him to hold her back.

But does that mean Elrond should have sent Arwen? She was clearly powerful (though from the worried look on her face at the ford, I'd say she was digging deep). Powerful enough to light up like Glorfindle would have? I don't know.

But I do think that she should have led the rangers to Battle of the Pelanor Fields the way the twins did in the books.

[cnath.rm]

It is, however, a desecration of Tolkien's works, because the idea of Arwen going with the Fellowship is very much different from Tolkien's conception, and anaethema to his way of thinking.
Tolkien's reaction to these changes? He would have fainted.

If you want to talk about desecrations of Tolkien's works we start earlier in the film. If we stick with Tolkien's original conception, then we have Aragorn running around the wilds with a broken freaking sword... Also we need to show the 20(?) years passing after Frodo moves out of Bilbo's before he leaves the shire with the others. There are lots of problems which would need to be fixed.

We are talking about a guy (JRRT) who had no problems selling movie rights to all and sundry, having now intention of actually approving any of them, and throwing a fit when he read a script where Aragorn was allowed to be using an actual working (though mundane) sword. This is the same guy who we are told left a showing of Disney's Snow White fuming mad at how the story had been changed... (having been taken to the movie by his friend CS Lewis who thought it would be a laugh getting his friend all riled up)

I'm sorry, Arwen/Glorfindel may or may not have been a reasonable change, but if we made a movie that was entirely faithful to the books, then we would have had to include the annoying Nat. Geographic style bits about the flora/fauna which seem to (imho at least) serve to move the story along not at all. (and which personally, I cared very little for and found a bit annoying)

I don't let Tom Bombadil's exclusion dilute my enjoyment of the movies, if you want to let something like the changes to Arwen's role kill your enjoyment of the movies, well then there ya go...I didn't miss him at all, putting Tom B in and doing it well would have added at least 20 min to the movie, and I think that the time was better used as Jackson used it.

I'll go a step further and say that a movie that's made 100% true to a book will probably not be a good movie, no matter how good the book was.

Just like book adaptations of good movies are generally shit.The Great Train Robbery (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079240/) was an excellent book and movie, and a damn good adaptation of the non-footnote portions of the book. (Though of course, the author of the book also wrote the adaptation and directed it, with rather helps. (Michael) Crichton)

Edena, out of curiosity, do you have the problem with PJ's adaptation of Two Towers because he kept jumping back and forth between the two stories as he did?


All of the above is imho and ymmv of course.

[Radu]

Dude, if you guys all like the movie so much, you should totally read the novelization! The only thing is, they changed a lot of things from the way the film went-- there's all kinds of extra characters and songs and stuff like that that only comes up once and then mostly gets forgotten.

[cnath.rm]

Dude, if you guys all like the movie so much, you should totally read the novelization! The only thing is, they changed a lot of things from the way the film went-- there's all kinds of extra characters and songs and stuff like that that only comes up once and then mostly gets forgotten.That was the plot of one of my favorite Knights of the Dinner Table strips by the way. :)