|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
blacksmoke
Registered User
Jun 7 2008, 8:19am
Post #1 of 50
(1133 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No Arwen Please
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am worried about what will happen if she returns for the bridge film. The trilogy already took too many liberties with her and the franchise does NOT revolve around her character. Here are my main concerns:
- She's been overglorified enough. She was a minor character who was barely in the books at all. It was bad enough she was marketed as one of the most important characters (third cast billing, her mug hogging half the posters while half of the more important characters were left out) which downplayed and overshadowed most of the other, more important characters. I'd hate to see any new characters and stories suffer the same fate again.
- Her only purpose was for the love story. Most of the material from the appendices has already been used in the film trilogy. Bringing her back for the same thing will be redundant and boring! It would be much more interesting to see new stories set in the post-Hobbit/pre-LOTR time period than a rehashed subplot. Also the film is supposed to be set in the one time period, not cover several years and adventures, That kind of rules out seeing how the love story all started unless Viggo was recast.
- Giving her a role outside the love story is going to turn her into a full fledge MARY SUE! Remember how she stole the chase scene from Glorfindel? Remember XenArwen? Remember Leggy taking down the Mumakil? Those are nothing compared to what they can do to her in an original film that isn't based on any particular story. Plus it gives the likes of Phillipa Boyens an excuse to use the character as a proxy to self-insert herself into the movie for some wish-fantasy fan fiction.
- To expand on the danger of XenArwen's return, it destroys any credability of "war being the province of men" belief in ME and makes her father look like a complete tool. Why would he allow his daughter to be potentially slain like a dog in battle, but forbid her to give up her immortality to spend the rest of her years filled with love and happiness? Having her "Pull A Leggy" in battle will also completely diminish the impact of Eowyn as a female combatant in ROTK, along with many male characters who fought in the battles since a measly human/dward/hobbit would be nothing compared to the "uber unstoppable indestructable She Elf". Did I mention it also goes well against her character? Liv herself said it best that she doesn't need to swing a sword to be a strong character. Respect the source material!
- Putting her in the center of the story for the sake of it. It happened with the whole "ring is causing her to die and she won't last much longer". Sorry but that was just a cheap cop-out into making her seem more important than she really is, plus that thing never really went anywhere anyway. Making more stories revolve around her will achieve nothing but make her look like a Mary Sue.
Perhaps if she were kept to a SMALL role that's relevant and if the other two ladies were included I would be OK with her returning. You can't have a prequel without Galadriel. The chat also said everyone who had a role in the trilogy will be asked to participate in the bridge film and reprise it, so there's no reason why Eowyn can't be included either. After all, the trilogy had no problems taking liberties with the inclusion of Arwen. There should be no reason why the roles can't be reversed in the bridge film.
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Gondolin
Jun 7 2008, 8:35am
Post #2 of 50
(871 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The problem is, "everyone knows"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
that unless there are female characters and, if possible, a love story, no females will go to the movie, and if it can't be a date movie you may as well not bother.
Any number of reviewers of LotR confidently asserted that "no women wanted to see it", flying in the face of incontrovertible evidence that the theatres were at least 50% female, and most of the repeat viewers (as well as many of the most active movie commentors on TORn) were female.
And The Hobbit has no female characters. Not one.
The vast majority of us on TORn don't see this as a problem, but I promise you that some moneybags in Hollywood will. And they will look to F2 to "fix" it.
Éowyn is only 24 years old for LotR. She isn't available, as she wasn't even a gleam in her father's eye at that time. There's Galadriel. A power-figure for the White Council; lots of good opportunities, but no romance.
And there's Arwen. Believe me, I fully agree with your position. I was glad to see Arwen given some more exposure, but the whole "Arwen is dying" subthread in RotK was one of the really big flaws in that movie. It made no sense. And I am much afraid, as clearly you are, that she's going to be drafted again.
Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'
|
|
|
overlithe64
Ossiriand
Jun 7 2008, 2:44pm
Post #3 of 50
(816 views)
Shortcut
|
I disagree that Arwen is a minor player.....She is a major player with minor character development....and I felt it was fine to upgrade her for the film, not that I agree with all the extra stuff....
I fell it is perfectly appropriate for her to show up in film 2, if the intent is to tie it all together....then she will have to at least have a part in it.
I am not obsessed... If I am, I am in excellent company.
|
|
|
merklynn
Menegroth
Jun 7 2008, 3:01pm
Post #4 of 50
(820 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I also agree that Arwen SHOULD be a part of Film Two
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Look, Arwen has more place in Film Two than anywhere else in what is now being planned to ultimately be a 5 movie series.... The Hobbit, Film Two, FOTR, TTT, ROTK. Tolkien had realized late in the writing of LOTR that Arwen needed to be a part of the story, but he was too far along to revise it at the time and she ended up SEEMING like an afterthought when in fact he did not feel this way about her himself. He had to settle for adding her as chapter in the Appendix.
Also, I've said it before, but that "Arwen is dying" scene is just down to how you interpret it. Literally, Elrond is correct. She is now mortal and is dying. It does have a sense of being immediate, but that is open to interpretation. I took it simply as being Elrond's reaction to the very difficult reality that Arwen was no longer immortal and that his daughter was effectively dying now. This is some heavy stuff for him to deal with since his wife was poisoned and had to leave Middle-earth already as well. So yes, it could come across as being some weird "Arwen is connected to the planet's life force" type thing, or simply metaphor for the fact that if Sauron wins, she is going to most assuredly be killed along with Aragorn, rather than being able to escape to the Grey Havens with her father.
I really love the Aragorn and Arwen story from the books and I wish that Tolkien had been able to work it in naturally the way he wanted to. In actuality the emphasis on Aragorn and Arwen is pretty minimal in the trilogy of films. Yes important scenes like the scouring aren't in the films and that sucks, but I don't think this is because of Arwen screen time. Film Two is derinitely the place for her. She is one of the few characters from LOTR who existed at the time and is tied to a major character "Aragorn". She is a useful link between Elrond and Galadriel, Rivendell and Lothlorien.
And Liv Tyler is wonderful to look at.
|
|
|
Artanis
Nargothrond
Jun 7 2008, 3:45pm
Post #5 of 50
(799 views)
Shortcut
|
characters in The Hobbit doesn't bother me, but I'm sure that in F2 they as others have said have got more characters they could add in, which is okay if they really need to go in...not just for the sake of them thinking "oh no, there are no females in these films". As much as I love the Aragorn/Arwen love story, I really wouldn't want F2 to be centered entirely round that.
One thing that has bugged me immensely is that when I got my boxed set of the LOTR soundtrack with the free picture cards in there was no Eowyn but two Arwen  .
That aside Elbereth is right, and I do have bad feelings that "Hollywood" is going to want to put some "eye candy" in, and if they do so for that reason alone I will be very disapointed.
Artanis
|
|
|
ArathornJax
Nargothrond
Jun 7 2008, 4:18pm
Post #6 of 50
(811 views)
Shortcut
|
I think Arwen has to be considered a static character in the three volumes of Lord of the Rings. It is not until Appendix A that I think she could be considered something other than static. In the books themselves, Arwen for me, does not change as a character. Outside of providing us with the knowledge that she loves Aragorn, and is willing to give up her own immortality to be with him, our knowledge of her doesn't really increase or grow throughout the three books. I think in the movies, Jackson and gang changed her to a dynamic character where she undergoes a real change because of the action of the plot. Thus I think it is the change from a static character to a dynamic character that people consciously or subconsciously did not like in the movie.
In Appendix A I think she does change from a static character to a dynamic character, but that change in and of itself one does not see until Aragorn is ready to leave mortality and give back the gift given to him. I have an ongoing debate with a friend on whether she is a flat character. One of us debates that Arwen is a flat character because she is not psychologically complex and is readily accessible to readers, while one of us argues that she is a round character because she is complex, showing the internal conflicts and inconsistencies of found in real people. Ok, I argue that in the three books she is a flat character and my friend says you have to consider her a round character in the three books. In the books I just cannot do that because her conflict with death and wanting to have her love and life go on is not reflected or shown until Appendix A. I think in Appendix A in the short story of Aragorn and Arwen I would consider her more of a round character, more of dynamic character over what she is in the books.
My evidence for this is found in the three volumes of LOTR. In the FOTR in the chapter Many Meetings we meet Arwen for the first time and are given a description of her. We see her later in the same chapter next to her father and with Aragorn and her stare pierces Frodo. Next we see her in the Steward and the King in ROTK when she arrives in Minish Tirith and weds Aragorn. Next in Many Partings we have her first dialogue where she confirms to Frodo her choice, both bitter and sweet is that of Luthien and gives to Frodo her place on the ship that will take her father over the sea. In the same chapter we hear that she goes to Edoras and stays there and does not go to Isengard. At Edoras she says good-bye to her brethern and has her final farewell with her father. That is all we have of her in the triology. Thus for me, she is a very static character, because she doesn't really change nor grow in the books. She could also be considered a flat character because she embodies one or two qualities, ideals or traits that most readers could summarize briefly. This changes somewhat in Appendix A where she is a little more dynamic. Just my thoughts on Arwen from a literary view, or should I say my literary view.
In terms of the movie, I've stated that Peter and Co. changed her to a very dynamic character and that is the fear I hear again here. The fear is in film 2 she will again be very much more dynamic. Alas, if Film 2 is about Aragorn, then Arwen has to be there as well and their will be changes in order for the film to fit with the Film Trilogy. There has to be. Only time will tell so until then, I will wait to see what is done.
" . . . (we are ) too engrossed in thinking of everything as a preparation or training or making one fit -- for what? At any minute it is what we are and are doing, not what we plan to be and do that counts."
J.R.R. Tolkien in his 6 October 1940 letter to his son Michael Tolkien.
(This post was edited by ArathornJax on Jun 7 2008, 4:20pm)
|
|
|
Woodyend
Mithlond
Jun 7 2008, 4:40pm
Post #7 of 50
(797 views)
Shortcut
|
took Tolkien 15 years to write LOTR. So in my opinion, if he had wanted her to have a larger part in the books, he had the time to do it.
I love Liv and think she is a good actress, but there are no words strong enough for me to express how much I resent and absolutely hate her in the LOTR. When I think of what PJ left out, so they could show more of her, I gnash my teeth. When I watch the movies I always fast forward her parts. She is just eye candy. A prop to show off all her girly girl costumes. Which by the why I loved. I didn't think there was any chemistry or passion, between her and Viggo. Actually I always expected to see grease spots on her gowns after she and Viggo embraced.
In the commentaries of the EE or in the appendices, I can't remember now which it was. PJ gave his justification for leaving out Bombadil. He said something like they decided that if a character didn't have anything to do with the ring it didn't work for the movie to have them in it. So I ask you, what did Arwen have to do with the ring?
Now F2 is different, I see clearly the justification of having her in it, if this is to be primarily Aragorn's tale.
As a women I resent the fact that the powers that be, wouldn't think I would not go see a movie unless there was some love interest in it. That's just sexist.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
~~~~~~~~Gandalf~~~~~~~
Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!
(This post was edited by Woodyend on Jun 7 2008, 4:45pm)
|
|
|
Peredhil lover
Doriath
Jun 7 2008, 4:53pm
Post #8 of 50
(787 views)
Shortcut
|
Arwen had a lot to do with the ring - she was Aragorn's main reason to fight and to accept the throne of Gondor.
Anyway, I wonder why we need a woman in the Hobbit movie when there are so many good looking male actors to look at?  That's not the strongest argument for me.
I do not suffer from LotR obsession - I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
Woodyend
Mithlond
Jun 7 2008, 4:58pm
Post #9 of 50
(776 views)
Shortcut
|
may have been one of the reasons. But somehow I don't think he would have curled up in a corner all scared, and let Sauron destroy Middel-earth if he had not ever met her.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
~~~~~~~~Gandalf~~~~~~~
Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!
|
|
|
merklynn
Menegroth
Jun 7 2008, 9:34pm
Post #10 of 50
(774 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Red blooded male's perspective....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Sorry but I agree with Peredhil lover, in that Arwen is the primary motivation for Aragorn in the LOTR films, and a driving force behind the complexity of his character. Tom Bombadil would not have added more dimensions to any of the other characters in the same way Arwen gave Viggo's Aragorn that extra weight to bear.
I have absolutely no problem with Arwen's inclusion in LOTR and I hope she will be an important part of Film Two. She has as much right to be in Film Two as many of the other characters people have suggested. Go Liv! Er Arwen...
And BTW, as a guy, I like having some eye candy too. It's all well and good for you girls to get all these "hot" guys to look at, but Cate doesn't do it for me, and Eowyn, as sweet as she is, just isn't a brunette. ;-)
|
|
|
overlithe64
Ossiriand
Jun 7 2008, 9:44pm
Post #11 of 50
(766 views)
Shortcut
|
Obviously if JRR felt the need to devote time to deepen the character in the Appendices, he wanted her to be more than what she appeared in the trilogy. As a reader once the history of Aragorn and Arwen is read the information is taken and applied to what has already been read and it deepens the meaning of every nuance between the two.
Since that sort of application is not possible in a film, (unless you'd already read it of course). I think it was important to broaden Arwen's role...Can you imagine the confusion of the non ring reader when this beautiful female appears then disappears then suddenly shows up to marry the new king? I think the portions added and pulled in from the appendices were integral parts of Aragorn's story line, bringing understanding of a sort to his struggles, desires and his hopes...
Since it seems that Peter and GDT are open to fan opinions and sensitivities I think it is safe to say we are in good hands and I for one don't fear the changes that may have to be made for continuity sake.....
I am not obsessed... If I am, I am in excellent company.
|
|
|
overlithe64
Ossiriand
Jun 7 2008, 9:52pm
Post #12 of 50
(759 views)
Shortcut
|
|
what did she have to do with the ring?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Aragorn could not wed her unless he was King, he could not be King unless the Ring was destroyed....Yeah I know its a loose association at best but it is an important part of who Aragorn is and what his hopes and fears are... and as I said above pulling in some of their backstory and having her present in some way in all three films formed at least some form of history and relationship....IT'd been very strange to see her piercing Frodo with her gaze in Rivendel then not again until the coronation or wedding....The movie goers would have been ..."what the heck, how did that happen".
The scourging of the Shire and Bombadil were some of the first things that Peter, Fran and Philippa dropped....so I doubt Arwen's short scenes were what caused them to be axed.
I know I am a minority in this...but if Bombadil had been included that would most likely be the scene I was fast forwarding through....though I think the barrow downs would have been great.
I am not obsessed... If I am, I am in excellent company.
|
|
|
overlithe64
Ossiriand
Jun 7 2008, 9:57pm
Post #13 of 50
(746 views)
Shortcut
|
Just for you males....lol...I think there is a place for her in both...doesn't matter where she really was....she could be at her fathers side in Rivendel....
I am not obsessed... If I am, I am in excellent company.
|
|
|
Woodyend
Mithlond
Jun 7 2008, 11:09pm
Post #14 of 50
(761 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Let me start off by saying I mean no disrespect......
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
to all you Arwen fans out there. I can easily see why you would like someone as talented and beautiful as Liv. And I know it is hard to hear criticism for something or someone you admire. That said, if we all thought exactly alike here, there would be no reason to stick around. You all, are making a great case for her to those of us who do not see her the same way. I think Arwen would be proud of you.
I still stick by my statement, that if Tolkien wanted her in the books, he had the time to put her in.
I only mentioned Bombadil because of PJ's reasons, (they have to be directly affiliated with the ring) to leave other scenes out of the movie not that I thought Bombadil needed to be added.
I also see no reason they had to show the wedding in the first place. In the books the weeding takes place months after the crowning ceremony any way.
Obviously if JRR felt the need to devote time to deepen the character in the Appendices, he wanted her to be more than what she appeared in the trilogy. As a reader once the history of Aragorn and Arwen is read the information is taken and applied to what has already been read and it deepens the meaning of every nuance between the two.
Since that sort of application is not possible in a film, (unless you'd already read it of course). I think it was important to broaden Arwen's role...Can you imagine the confusion of the non ring reader when this beautiful female appears then disappears then suddenly shows up to marry the new king? I think the portions added and pulled in from the appendices were integral parts of Aragorn's story line, bringing understanding of a sort to his struggles, desires and his hopes...
Since it seems that Peter and GDT are open to fan opinions and sensitivities I think it is safe to say we are in good hands and I for one don't fear the changes that may have to be made for continuity sake.....
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
~~~~~~~~Gandalf~~~~~~~
Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!
|
|
|
Woodyend
Mithlond
Jun 7 2008, 11:15pm
Post #15 of 50
(755 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree with you whole heartedly about the barrow downs.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That is where Merry got the dagger, that broke the spell that held the Witch King together. Without that dagger Eowyn’s sword would have never penetrated his body.
The scourging of the Shire and Bombadil were some of the first things that Peter, Fran and Philippa dropped....so I doubt Arwen's short scenes were what caused them to be axed. I know I am a minority in this...but if Bombadil had been included that would most likely be the scene I was fast forwarding through....though I think the barrow downs would have been great.
As far as the first script is concerned, it is also the one that had Arwen at Helm’s Deep in it. Which by the way they filmed and then had to electronically remove her, from the movie. So if that had been left out, who knows what they might have done. The might have beens, are all we are left with now. Oh, and three of the greatest movies ever made!
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
~~~~~~~~Gandalf~~~~~~~
Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!
|
|
|
overlithe64
Ossiriand
Jun 7 2008, 11:19pm
Post #16 of 50
(745 views)
Shortcut
|
And I would not consider myself an Arwen fan.....But I can see why she was "upgraded", for the films and understand what the thought process was behind that "upgrade", from appendices to having a more tangible part in the films. No need for me to restate my reasoning.
I was not happy with the Faramir changes either, but understanding why it was done for the film has given me some measure of peace with it.....Just another example of things that were done that initially I didn't get.....that after learning the whyfores, I learned to live with. The books have their own eternal innate value, I'll love them forever...
I am not obsessed... If I am, I am in excellent company.
|
|
|
Eledhwen
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jun 7 2008, 11:46pm
Post #17 of 50
(756 views)
Shortcut
|
After all we didn't get XenArwen in LOTR - I don't count the chase, I think that made sense and I think including Glorfindel would just have been confusing. Having her replace him was a good way of introducing her quickly, making the relationship with Aragorn clear including the fact she's an Elf, he's not, and this is a problem.
I'd love to see the scene in Lothlórien from the appendices, where Aragorn turns up all scruffy and battered after doing heroic deeds for years and gets scrubbed up nicely by Galadriel and Arwen sees him and falls in love. As an Aragorn fangirl that would make me a happy person. Arwen is a good part of Aragorn's motivation; she plays a minor role in LOTR but she's not absent. I'd be very happy to see her back in either TH or Film 2.
Figwit Still Lives!
Calling for a Figwit cameo in The Hobbit since May 2008
|
|
|
Woodyend
Mithlond
Jun 8 2008, 12:47am
Post #18 of 50
(746 views)
Shortcut
|
to have seen the scene where Gandalf turns up in Lothlorien without his clothes on.
Gandalf awoke lying naked on the peak of the Silvertine. Once again Gwaihir came to his aid and bore him to Lothlorien, where he was clothed in white by Galadriel.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
~~~~~~~~Gandalf~~~~~~~
Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!
|
|
|
merklynn
Menegroth
Jun 8 2008, 2:33am
Post #19 of 50
(736 views)
Shortcut
|
I still stick by my statement, that if Tolkien wanted her in the books, he had the time to put her in.
I don't know, I think I remember a letter in which he said he had wanted to. I think the issue might have simply been that he would have been adding her too late in the story by the time he realized, as remember the LOTR did not come out all at once but over many years. I can't cite any sources though, just seen it discussed here many times in the past. I think Tolkien regretted committing to her as late as he did. \
Now some general responses to various posters in this thread...
I'm not really a fan of any one single character or pairing. But I do like the Aragorn and Arwen story and I think it has more relevance in Film Two than Balin's failed expedition/colony. People have suggested seeing both or one or the other. That's because from my POV Arwen helps build Aragorn's story and his character. Balin is just a fun thing to see, but does not necessarily have any connection to the One Ring.
This thread is about Arwen being in the prequels, not about how it sucked that she got some attention in LOTR in place of others. There are loads of scenes that were omitted and indeed Arwen is one that could also have been omitted, but if you are going to keep one or two of the less important scenes, then they need to be justified in that they need to have the accompanying scenes relevant to that particular storyline. Otherwise you end up with a much more piecemeal collection of different storylines, all of which will be underdeveloped because of the film's time limit. Only a mini-series, or a series of 6 or so films, could really do a real and more faithful adaptation of books in keeping the majority of storylines and events. So if you are going to keep a "storyline" then it should be developed properly. Arwen was one they kept. Tom Bombadil wasn't.
Earlier someone said that PJ made a statement in a commentary which seems hypocritical given that his explanation for why he cut certain scenes should also mean Arwen should not have been in there. As far as the statements that PJ and others make in commentaries, I don't believe such spontaneous DVD commentary statements warrant close inspection. We all roll things off our tongue from time to time. It's not like he wrote down what he was going to say, putting it to paper and thereby committing more to his statement. Same goes for the stuff Phillipa Boyens said. They were making a movie, THEIR movie, and it means they make the choices not us. I'm sure one day Bombadil will get his due, and perhaps Arwen will get pushed back into the shadows, but this fan enjoyed it and wants more Arwen. :-)
Given that the new films are still essential Jackson films, in that GDT is keeping to the LOTR "film" canon, and that Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens are also working on the scipts, the storyline will still be a part of the Jackson LOTR world. So that means that Arwen does have/deserve a place in Film Two. The weight her character had in the LOTR films warrants her inclusion along with any other relevant characters to that time period between TH and FOTR. She is tied to Aragorn on several occasions during this time, and Aragorn is the character who grows the most and has the most supporting material between TH an FOTR. So please, bring back Arwen! :-D
(This post was edited by merklynn on Jun 8 2008, 2:39am)
|
|
|
ArathornJax
Nargothrond
Jun 8 2008, 5:41am
Post #20 of 50
(730 views)
Shortcut
|
Tolkien said concerning Arwen in letter 181 that in regards to Gandalf's death and return with greater power, that he was only concerned with death "as part of the nature, physical and spiritual of Man, and with hope without guarantees." Furthermore Tokien stated that is why he regards the tale of Arwen and Aragorn as the most important in the Appendixes, because it is a part of this essential story of death being part of the nature of mankind, their physical and spiritual being linked, and with hope without guarantees. Tolkien states that the story of Arwen and Aragorn are only in the Appendices because it could not be worked into the story without wrecking the structure of the story. The structure of LOTR is "hobbito-centric, which for Tolkien is a "study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble."
I think we see this when Aragorn realizes it is time for him to give back the gift of the Valar of such a long life, and to give up his mortality willingly. For Arwen this is a hard because she was not ready to give up life and all that they shared. She realizes how bitter the gift to men is from the One, and yet Aragorn reminds her that they have hope that "beyond this world is more than memory" before he enters into his sleep. The experience reveals that Arwen had scorned men, but now she had learned pity.
I would love to see one of the themes of Film 2 be on this notion of "hope without guarantees" . That theme would link Film two to the Trilogy. The reality is that it will probably be something else. I do agree with Merklynn that Arwen will be in Film 2. What her role will be is unknown since they haven't even started scripting yet.
" . . . (we are ) too engrossed in thinking of everything as a preparation or training or making one fit -- for what? At any minute it is what we are and are doing, not what we plan to be and do that counts."
J.R.R. Tolkien in his 6 October 1940 letter to his son Michael Tolkien.
|
|
|
Peredhil lover
Doriath
Jun 8 2008, 6:33am
Post #21 of 50
(721 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, Bilbo and the dwarves visit Imladris, and Arwen could be seen there, even without having to have much of a role. And I suppose in Dale there are a few females, too. So you'll have a few nice females, never fear.
Anyway, I could live with an all-female cast in a similar interesting story very well, so at least for me it is not so important to have the other gender around. I think it's mainly the studio - and as they thought LotR is something for teenage and young adult males only, we know they are not necessarily right anyway
I do not suffer from LotR obsession - I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jun 8 2008, 12:20pm
Post #22 of 50
(715 views)
Shortcut
|
I was pleased to see PJ et. al. working the Arwen & Aragorn story into the LotR movie: it may not have been "canon", but it acknowledged Tolkien's desire to incorporate that story into LotR.
It will indeed be interesting to see how much of this story GdT works into Film 2, and what form it will take.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"
"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915
|
|
|
Artanis
Nargothrond
Jun 8 2008, 4:43pm
Post #23 of 50
(726 views)
Shortcut
|
that Arwen did bring to the LOTR films for me and may do the same for F2 ...(regardless of how much she is in the books)....is that she came across to me as very graceful, beautiful, intelligent....and all sorts of other adjectives that would apply to her kind. Much like Galadriel and Haldir, Arwen too showed me that the Elves *were* different to Men and this was important as I had not read the books till after I saw the films. So that in itself is important as films are visual.
I really don't mind if Arwen is in the film 2 or not (except for the "eye candy" reason which is a bit of a lame one for such grand films), but it would seem natural that you would see the beginnings of Aragorns relationship with her and how he got involved with her in the first place, but how much screen time should be given to that...........well I don't know!
Artanis
Reading: Unfinished Tales, The Princess and Curdie, Sense and Sensibility.
Listening: LOTR Trilogy Soundrack, Downhere-Wide Eyed and Mystified, Steven Curtis Chapman-This Moment.
Random Delights: tea, Peanut Butter Kitkat, toast and strawberry jam. TORN
|
|
|
bookgirl13
Menegroth
Jun 8 2008, 11:33pm
Post #24 of 50
(701 views)
Shortcut
|
After all we didn't get XenArwen in LOTR - I don't count the chase, I think that made sense and I think including Glorfindel would just have been confusing. Having her replace him was a good way of introducing her quickly, making the relationship with Aragorn clear including the fact she's an Elf, he's not, and this is a problem. It was also practical way of getting Frodo to the ford. In a book it is a lot easier to sell the idea of a small hobbit controlling a large horse without bit and bridle, being chased by Black Riders. Logistically on film it was easier to have an elf doing that task. And I agree, if the horse had to be ridden by an elf then use Arwen rather than introduce a character who disappears after Rivendell.
I have less problem with a XenArwen, as The Silmarillion and HoME have, with Galadriel and Aredhel, female elves who were quite Amazonian.
|
|
|
bookgirl13
Menegroth
Jun 9 2008, 6:34am
Post #25 of 50
(688 views)
Shortcut
|
- To expand on the danger of XenArwen's return, it destroys any credability of "war being the province of men" belief in ME and makes her father look like a complete tool. Why would he allow his daughter to be potentially slain like a dog in battle, but forbid her to give up her immortality to spend the rest of her years filled with love and happiness?
Although I was glad that Arwen was not turned into a fighting machine and I agree that I could not see Elrond being happy about his daughter being at Helms Deep, I think that there is a significant difference between an elf being slain and one giving up her immortality as Arwen choose to do. Elves, when they sickened or were slain and died, did not leave the world but their spirits returned to Mandos and eventually regained a physical form. Elrond, when he left ME, would probably meet his wife again over the sea.
The chat also said everyone who had a role in the trilogy will be asked to participate in the bridge film and reprise it, so there's no reason why Eowyn can't be included either. After all, the trilogy had no problems taking liberties with the inclusion of Arwen. There should be no reason why the roles can't be reversed in the bridge film.
As I understood it, it was not everyone in the LotR who would reappear in the bridge film, only if their role was pertinent to the story they were telling. As has already been pointed out, characters like Eowyn and Eomer would have been too young to be in any bridge concept that I can envisage. IIRC what they also said in the chat is if an actor was unable to reprise their role then they would change the direction of the film so that there was no requirement for that character to appear. IMO what they were reassuring us that they would not replace actors, without a regard to continuity to the existing films, unlike what they were forced to do with the Back to the Future series.
Arwen's role: I do not think that it would be out of the way, if the bridge film used Aragorn as a focus, to mine even more from their story in the Appendices. It does give motivation to Aragorn and expands that in the LotR films. This motivation is even more important in the films than in the book, as they made him reluctant to take up the responsibility of the throne and she was a major reason for him to do so. In the books, he is ambitious in his own right and IMO would have fought for Gondor even if Arwen did not exist.
|
|
|
|
|
1
