why don't people like arwen in the movie?

[Lily Ahern]

Why don't people like Arwen in the movie , I know that they gave her an extended piece but that is no reason to rag on her! <BR>P.J (Peter Jackson)also had round out the movie with a bit of romance . If they didn't have arwen who would they have ? Eowyn? too early in the first one and in the books eowyn marries faramir then who would they have?

[Jurion]

People don't like Arwen in the movies because her role is different from her role in the books. I personally don't have that much of a problem wit it, as long as she stays away from the battle at Pellenor Fields.<P>PS. Shouldn't this thread be in the movies forum.

[eleanor_niphredil]

I dont like here because she (okay, not her personaly) stole Glorfindels place in the movie. That poor elf will now be sitting at home while arwen is rolling in it!

[Iarbariel]

I do have a big problem by PJ pushing Glorfindel away just so he could make a nice lil' Hollywood romance thing with Aragorn and Arwen. I am fed up by her actually... :-)<BR>And besides, I bet she will be the big hero in RotK when she comes running with narsil...*grrr

[Inderjit Sanghera]

I liked her in TTT, but stealing Glorfindel's role in FoTR? That missy is in for a good spanking and I'll be the one to administrate it.

[Dark Shadow]

I also feel that it was wrong to replace Glorfindel with Arwen in FotR. Actually, it doesn't make sense either. I mean why would Elrond send his daughter out? Oh well. I'm not going to criticise anymore. I couldn't have done a better job of making the movies....

[Tenduriel]

I haven't seen TTT yet (so perhaps I even shouldn't be writing this...), but I wonder how she could appear in the second part of the trilogy? what difference can she make? I have read the books several times, but I still can't find a place for her (glorious) appearance...<BR>please help me out!

[HCIsland]

Slings and arrows time.<P>PJ had to lose Glorfindel. You can't give a character a scene like that in a movie and the have him drop off the planet. It doesn't work. As well, he had to expand Arwen's role. The romance between her and Aragorn is lifted right out of the book. The appendix is as much LoTR as the rest of it. Much of the best stuff is in there. <P>He also can't have Arwen show up at the end like some kind of trophy bride for Aragorn. In the book you can talk about her lineage and history and it works fine. In a movie you've got to show her doing something. This is not about political correctness. This is about the differences between celluloid and the printed page.<P>H.C.<p>[ January 19, 2003: Message edited by: HCIsland ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

This movie topic has been moved to the Movies forum.

[Lush]

I bet half the girls who "hate" Arwen are subconsciously jealous of those bee-stung lips, and the fact that Viggo gets to kiss 'em. I personally think she is delightful.

[mollecon]

HCI, I'm afraid you're talking to deaf ears, as we say here. Some people simply do not comprehend that there is a difference (sometimes big) between telling a story by the film media & by a novel - they want the book on the screen, scene by scene, chapter by chapter.

[Sindae]

I don't think that it was a good idea to let Arwen take Glorfindel's place. Arwen is not Éowyn, she's no warrior! Perhaps she's very wise and so on but not that action type who'd fight against Nazgûl. The love scene in Rivendell was not bad and explains much but the meeting with the fellowship before this was unnecessary and against her character.

[Eruantalon]

Come on guys look at the screen time she would have had if she didn't take some ones place.In FotR she would have had much less time on screen.Also unless I am mistaken she is one of the main charctors.How else could PJ have gotten that much of her story started with out putting her in there.<P><BR>Basicaly she need to have her story unfold as much as the rest of the charctors.Orther wise people who didn't read the books would be in total confusion.<P><BR>So they added a littel extra Arwen.To help the story line along.<P>It doesn't change the fact that these are the greatest movies of all time.From how they where made to how they come across on the screen.<P>Art is noting unless you have somthing to say.<P>Good thing for PJ Tolkien had so much to say he couldn't even pack it into a 3 hour movie.So if he does things that arn't in the book.You have to understand.

[dunadan_aragorn]

I just don't like how they had to make her such a warrior, she makes Aragorn look kinda stupid (and that is a deadly sin)

[The Saucepan Man]

There is simply no way that you could make three 3 hour films (or even one 2 hour film) for an audience today without having any more than one "active" female character. <P>So, given that at least one of the female character's roles had to be extended to give her a greater involvement in the action, I think that Arwen was really the only choice, particularly given her realtionship with Aragorn and his central role in the film.

[Diamond18]

I realized the answer (potentially) to the question this thread title poses, a while back when I was reading a thread about Arwen. Later, in another thread, I brought it up. Since this was a <I>really</I> old thread, I'll repost a slightly updated version of my comments (completely cold and unfeeling toward the skwerl that will die):<P>I think people get more upset about Glorfindel's chucking than even Tom Bombadil (or other characters like Fatty Bolger and Bill Ferny) just because he was replaced by a female. I read someone once say that the Bashki cartoon was better because it had Legolas replace Glorfindel.<P>What? No "I hate Legolas where was Glorfindel" rants? Many people say Arwen in the movie was just for the feminists. I'm not a proponent of feminist re-writes, but I get annoyed by anti-female sentiments as well. And yes, I do believe that females can and do express anti-female sentiments. Arwen wasn't for a female quota, I think. It was because there was a character there just begging to be explored further. And I'm sure they thought (ah so naïvely) that a switch between Arwen and a truly minor character (i.e. someone who doesn't do anything big later on) would be painless and neat.<P>Some people (whether they admit it or not) just don't like it that Glorfindel was replaced with a girl, because girls should know their place and <I>never</I> usurp a male. Any male, even if he wasn't really that important in the book. Forget coolness generated from him killing a Balrog in ages gone by, this is the here and now of Lord of the Rings. So if you (I use the word generally) are going to get invective over the Arwen/Glorfindel switch, please do me a favor and scream bloody murder over the Legolas/Glorfindel switch in the old cartoon.<P>Hope that gives and interesting answer to the question of this thread. And do pass on my condolences to the family of the skwerl.

[Lush]

*loves Diamond*

[Gorwingel]

I don't mind Arwen having a larger role, but I did see FOTR before I read the book, so maybe I would have a different opinion, if I had gone to see the film expecting to see Glorfindel, and then not seeing him at all. I think there was a way though, that they could have had Arwen have a bigger role (so that the average public understood why Arwen married Aragorn), and still keep Glorfindel (Hey after Glorfindel was done they could always have sent him to Helm's Deep )<p>[ January 20, 2003: Message edited by: Gorwingel ]

[HCIsland]

I'm not sure that would have mattered. That shot of Arwen facing the Nazgul was seen so much that someone would have had to be in a cave not to see it. Maybe you didn't know it was Arwen, but it sure as hell wasn't Frodo or Glorfindel.<P>By the way, I personally think that shot was one of the most gorgeous things ever put to film, so as far as I'm concerned I wouldn't have cared if the killed off Glorfindel (well, maybe a little )<P>H.C.

[Darkside]

I don't like Liv Tyler to begin with, so I don't really care for her rendition of Arwen. (Or Peter Jackson's version of her, as well.)<P>As far as Arwen replacing Glorfindel goes, I was very irritated. However, I was even more irritated that Arwen replaced <B>Frodo facing the Nazgul</B>. I think it was at that point that Frodo was emasculated and became the big-eyed wimp that whines throughout the rest of the story. (But that is for another thread... )

[Lalaith]

Of all the plot changes made by PJ, the Glorfindel/Arwen substitution was the one I minded least. In fact, I actively approved of it. <BR>Sorry, I can't remember who said this earlier, but whoever it was that made the point of Glorfindel having this moment and then vanishing from the story, is right. I also agree with whoever made the sexism point. I fear there is more than a grain of truth there. <BR>However, perhaps Glorfindel could have been used in the Haldir role, and to better effect. WHY is everyone so crazy about Haldir? He's about as impressively elven as my hairdresser...<BR>The TTT Arwen storyline is much more annoying, although I don't blame Liv Tyler for that. The script doesn't make sense. Why establish Arwen as a strong female warrior type in FotR, only to have her bossed about by Elrond as Heavy Patriach Father packing her off to the Havens in TTT? Silly. And it was NOT in the appendix. Elrond did not pull a Thingol. He never tried to break up the relationship, he merely told Aragorn that he had to fulfil his destiny before he married ANY man's daughter.

[Nibinlondwen]

They did let a caracter in to the film and just dropped him of the planet. Haldir, but ofcourse he has to come to helms deep and get killed... I hated that part.<BR>Why didnt glorfindel get his part then he could go to helms deep TOO and get killed as all of the elves there do... im soooo irritated.

[Finiel]

I like Arwen...her character in the movies create intrigues and jokes about her and Glorfindel which makes the movie interesting to non-LOTR fans.<P> Never mind if she jumped from a minor role from the books to a major one in the movies. The point is to add luster to female characters so that male movie-goers will also have a chance to drool something in the movie. PJ is such a good businessman.

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Arwen wasn't for a female quota, I think. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I wasn't suggesting that her expanded role was an example of tokenism. It is just that, in our films today, we (quite rightly, I think) expect there to be both male and female characters involved in the action. And we expect a bit of romance.<P>I have no problem with Arwen replacing Glorfindel, or the development of her role in the films compared with her role in the books. I think it works well in the context of these film (which, of course, are <B>not</B> the books).<P>And I won't have a problem when she turns up in RotK with Narsil and Aragorn's banner (d'you really think she's off to the Grey Havens?). Shame about the Dunedain, but so be it ...

[Diamond18]

That was an old statement, Saucepan Man. I didn't have you in mind. I'm talking about people who get so terribly hot under the collar that they refuse to consider that there was good intention behind putting Arwen into the movie, and say they hate Liv Tyler. In the old thread I took that from there was some talk about PJ going for a female quota to please feminists. Sorry to be lazy, but I just didn't want to have to type out my idea about the Arwen Haters all over again.

[Tar-Palantir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And I won't have a problem when she turns up in RotK with Narsil and Aragorn's banner (d'you really think she's off to the Grey Havens?). Shame about the Dunedain, but so be it ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>How do you know we won't see the Dunedain? I still have hope. How about this scenario: We've already seen Arwen leaving Rivendell, so maybe at some predetermined point along the road to the Grey Havens she ducks into the forest and with the help of Tom Bombadil musters the remaining Dunedain and they escort her to Rohan? Maybe Glorfindel will be there too.

[Melephelwen]

Anyone here has the EE FotR dvd? In the Directors' commentary, it is specifically explained <B>why there was no Glorfindel</B>.<BR>The script-writers didn't like just to give up Glorfindel, but they were aware that it wouldn't work to introduce a character for, say, 3 scenes (Glorfindel) and then completely leave him behind, move on and introduce a new one (Arwen), <I>besides</I> Elrond & Co. Non-readers would (my own expression) be like "Huh?! Who was he? And her? And what's his name? And why is she there? Who are they? What? Are they already leaving? But who're they?" etc. etc. My friend couldn't keep Aragorn, Boromir and Legolas apart!!! <BR>I hope I made my point clear. (And I agree with Diamond on that "Glorfindel replaced by female=bad" point)

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

It really depends on which movie. In the Two Towers, the very thought of her is what keeps Aragorn going. That was alright, it also elaborated a bit on how much Elrond cared for her, and even was integral. As far as the debacle that was her part in the Fellowship, I hate it. I know they were trying to establish her as strong in character and a strong part of Aragorn's life, his inspiration even, but would a father as protective as Elrond have let her ride against the nine, when he truly only let the most powerful of his house, such as Gildor or Glorfindel do that dangerous task. They had seen the light of Valinor, they glowed with it, they would not be afraid of the nine, but she had never even seen the nine, had never thought about rebelling and what I like to call "stealing Glorfindel's horse to steal the show." And I still think Glorfindel wouldn't have been "one more character," his inclusion would have shown the power of Rivendell, the fact that Aragorn was raised in Rivendell and had a good friend, and that Elrond had tremendous foresight and wisdom in sending someone like him. Not Arwen. He probably wouldn't have even sent Elladan or Elrohir against the nine. I really think elaborating Arwen's part takes away from Elrond's and Rivendell's power and wisdom. Other than that, I guess I have no problem with the romantic parts between her and Aragorn. But I really hope she doesn't steal away from her fellow elves to go give Aragorn his banner personally. I really only see that happening. Oh, and would she have put a blade to Aragorn's neck? I really don't think so, even in slight jest.

[maikafanawen]

I'm sorry Tar-Palantir, but the Dunedain aren't going to be in ROTK. It's been confirmed on other threads, and many wedsites support it.<P>Now about Arwen. I am extremely glad she has a large part in the movie. It gives the movie grace and beauty. I didn't mind that there weren't many female characters in the books, because to me, it wasn't about the characters appearances it was about their feelings and purposes. For all I care, Frodo could have been a girl, as long as his lines stayed the same and the purposes coincided. <P>Also, any movie longer than two hours must have a romance theme. MUST. The Arwen Aragorn scenes were perfect. I also approve of all the romance scenes in TTT. Glorfingel was great in the book, and Arwen was great in the movie. It all comes together in the end.

[thunder_goddess]

I dont really have a problem with Arwen being there. She had to have a role in all the movies, because they marry later on. But as long as Arwen doesnt go completly off course with her role and becomes a Shield Maiden of rohen or something , then i got no problem. And by the way, someone said girls hate Arwen because they are jelous....that might have something to do with it Personally, if i was offered her role, id jump to it

[Fanniemae99]

Personally she shouldn't have been in TT because if you read the book she isn't mentioned at all. Also in FOTR she is only mentioned in passing. Plus what really bugs me is that on the TT movie poster her picture is bigger than Legolas and he does so much more for the movie. I could have done without the sappy romantic flashbacks.

[The-Elf-Herself]

I've come to accept Arwen's increased role in the movie version of LOTR. However, what irritates me is how the film makers keep patting themselves on the back, saying how they've taken the extra Arwen/Aragorn scenes from the Appendices. I have read the Appendices of ROTK backwards and forwards and I have yet to see any of the scenes they portrayed in Rivendell. There was no scene over the pendant(which didn't exist in the book), no last minute before-the-Fellowship-leaves scene where Elrond is urging Aragorn to "let Arwen go". Good grief, there would be no reason for him to do that in the books. Aragorn and Arwen have been betrothed for thirty-something years now. I would think that Lord Elrond would not only have grown resigned to the idea, but be slightly encouraged that at least this guy is steadfast enough to commit this much. Furthermore, Elrond would not be urging Arwen to go at this late date. He already knows she's committed to Aragorn. If they wanted to use stuff from the Appendices, they could have shown a brief scene of Arwen and Araogrn plighting their troth on Cerin Amroth, then show Elrond first finding out and used that whole speech he does int he book about how Arwen shall not marry any less than a king of Gondor and Arnor. <P>However, this whole thing is beside and away from the storyline they wish to use in the movie, so I understand why they went the way they did. Trying to connect with the audience and show them this stuff first-hand is my best guess. I won't begrudge them their changes to the Aragorn and Arwen storyline, that's their choice. It just annoys me when the film makers try to excuse themselve by saying that it was in the Appendices when clearly it was not. They should be able to live with their choices and defend them on their own terms, not bring the drastically different book storyline into it.

[Lalaith]

Absolutely. I've argued along much the same lines elsewhere. I had no problem with the death of Aragorn preview,which was in the Appendix, but I really didn't like the spurious portrayal of Elrond as heavy father. He was no Thingol - he did not try to talk Arwen out of the relationship.<BR>Unfortunately, they *couldn't* have Elrond putting the Kingship of Gondor as a condition of the wedding. Remember, it was decided that it would be more "interesting" if they turned Aragorn into Simba the Lion King, a man who rejected his destiny, who has "chosen exile." Book Aragorn was totally motivated and geared towards claiming the crown, not just because it was his destiny but because it was a condition of his marrying Arwen. They had to take that motivation away in the film so he could carry on vacillating in an "interesting" way right until the last film. <BR>Sigh.

[HCIsland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I had no problem with the death of Aragorn preview,which was in the Appendix, but I really didn't like the spurious portrayal of Elrond as heavy father. He was no Thingol - he did not try to talk Arwen out of the relationship. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>They needed to get across what Arwen was giving up in staying with Aragorn and having someone discuss the consequences with her is the easiest (and certainly effective) way to do it. Elrond is the logical choice here. Perhaps this isn't quite this strong in the book, but from a movie audience perspective, not having Elrond concerned about what his daughter is doing would be difficult to explain and to explain it would distract from the central plot. Similarly, to not have Aragorn question whether he has a right to ask Arwen to do this would make him appear callous and would turn Arwen into little more then a trophy bride.<P>H.C.

[King_Elessar]

I like Arwen in the movies, and I don't know why people hate her so much. I don't like her taking over Glorfindel's part in FOTR, byut you need to know the relationship between her amnd Aragorn. I hate her bit in TTT where she goes: "sssleep, go to ssssleep"<P>Bye. Elessar

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

HCIsland<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> You can't give a character a scene like that in a movie and the have him drop off the planet. It doesn't work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Actually it does work. Caracters can, and have been dropped off like that. The are minor characters and only needed for their parts. They should know their role. And why do you think they can't do that? Because it's Liv Tyler? If that's the reason, then that's disgusting because they are using Liv Tyler to advertise their movie, which I believe is extremely wrong, And I also believe is for money. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> This is not about political correctness. This is about the differences between celluloid and the printed page. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It's not about political correctness as you have said, but it's really about money fo you think about it. Extending Arwen's role like that will expand the female audiences and in turn make mor money.<P>mollecon<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Some people simply do not comprehend that there is a difference (sometimes big) between telling a story by the film media & by a novel - they want the book on the screen, scene by scene, chapter by chapter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>"they want the book on the screen, scene by scene, chapter by chapter." That's exactly what I want, but you and HC have to realize that the difference between books and films is in an entirely different situation here. The thing is that PJ made promises. He said that he wouldn't make unnecessary changes and that he would stick as closely to the book as possible. He broke both of those promises. SO if he had not promised that, I would not care that much, but since he promised us, and didn't keep those promises, I am extremely aggrivated and offended. I was promised a lot more, so I expected a lot more, but I didn't get that. That is one feeling I hate; getting your hopes up and having them shattered. I hate being tricked and decieved like I was with TTT, and even parts of FotR. And, "they want the book on the screen, scene by scene, chapter by chapter.", well that's what I wanted, and I do realize you don't always get what you want. I didn't care that much about The Old Forest, Tom Bombadil, and The Barrow Downs (my favorite part) being left out. Why? Because it wasn't all that important, and it wasn't twisted and transformed, like the did in many parts of TTT film.<P>Eruantalon <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Come on guys look at the screen time she would have had if she didn't take some ones place.In FotR she would have had much less time on screen.Also unless I am mistaken she is one of the main charctors. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, it doesn't matter how much screen time she wouldn't get. That's the way it should have been. She didn't deserve that screen time; it wasn't her's. And you are mistaken, Arwen is most definately not one of the main characters.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> How else could PJ have gotten that much of her story started with out putting her in there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>How? HOW? <B>I'll tell you how!</B> He could have followed the book a lot closer, especially like he promised us (which he broke, I 'll add). Besides, how do you think Tolkien got the story started off? If you want to know, then read the books (I'm not saying you haven't). My point is that Arwen was not needed; she was an unnecessary change. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It doesn't change the fact that these are the greatest movies of all time.From how they where made to how they come across on the screen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Umm....don't start to confuse fact with opinion. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So if he does things that arn't in the book.You have to understand. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Understand what? That the way he did it was the only way? Well, it is not the only way. He could have left some parts out, rather than turn them into his own Frankenstiens. You have to understand that he broke promises and changed things that were totally unnecessary. The only thing I can see that it was necessary for was money, and if it truly was, then PJ is a sell-out.<P>The Saucepan Man<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> There is simply no way that you could make three 3 hour films (or even one 2 hour film) for an audience today without having any more than one "active" female character. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>PJ could have just done it without an "active" female character. It is possible. So, you disagree with HC about political correctness? Well, I hate to sound like a broken record but, if this is why Arwen's role was extended, then it's for money and PJ is a sell-out.<P>Diamond18 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> just because he was replaced by a female <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have to disagree with that. Maybe some are, but I am upset because PJ made a promise but did not keep it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I read someone once say that the Bashki cartoon was better because it had Legolas replace Glorfindel. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think maybe why it was better was because you were going to see Legolas through out the rest of the movie anyways. And it wasn't like Legolas rode with Frodo to the ford in Bakshi's film, that is a minor change, but when PJ does it, I could just imagine Arwen saying, "female power," or something like that. I really don't want to get into a big argument about feminism, so I'll just leave it alone.<P>Finiel <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> PJ is such a good businessman. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Exactly. It was just for the money $$$$$$$$$$$$$<P>Melephelwen <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> they were aware that it wouldn't work to introduce a character for, say, 3 scenes (Glorfindel) and then completely leave him behind, move on and introduce a new one (Arwen) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It could work, and that was just a lousy excuse. They could have clearly showed that Glorfindel was just on an errand. They didn't need to have Arwen there.<P>maikafanawen <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> any movie longer than two hours must have a romance theme. MUST. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It doesn't have to. Myabe it does for you you to enjoy it, but that doesn't mean it has to. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It all comes together in the end. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes, but the end products will be different. And I will notice, and I will hate it.<p>[ January 28, 2003: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

[Lush]

Oh Willie, my lad, all this fuss over Arwen <I>again</I>?<P>If you think Peter Jackson is a "sell-out", then how do you purpose he should have gotten his financing? Maybe <I>you</I> could have pitched in? What's 270 million, right? <P>As for Peter Jackson's "promises," I don't recall him ever saying "I promise" to me, or you, or anyone else. Tolkien himself sold the movie rights. Jackson owes you nothing.<P>And yes, Liv Tyler is sensual, and attractive to many people (not lindil though, as I've learned ), and looks good on movie posters. Well, sex sells. Sex has "sold" when we all still lived in caves. It's a natural part of the physical world that we occupy. Liv is hot. But then again, so is Elijah Wood to some people. Why don't we hear more complaining about that? Why is it Arwen this and Arwen that 90% of the time? After all, Tolkien's Frodo was supposed to be much older.<P>You have every right to dislike the films (God knows, <I>I</I> was cringing at some parts, and I am notoriously easy to please), but please don't turn this into some sort of moralist attack on Peter Jackson.

[Lalaith]

Of the changes that were made in the two films, the Arwen/Glorfindel one was the least irritating, because it worked well, it was impressive on screen. <BR>I think it is better to substitute a character for another character than to take a character from the book, give him the same name but a totally different personality. I'm not just talking about the obvious of Faramir, I'm talking about Aragorn losing his wish to be king, Elrond becoming a patriachal tyrant, Gimli turned into a crass comic attraction, Theoden into a sullen unco-operative whinger, Boromir (a bluff, hearty soldier in the book) into a tortured existentialist anti-hero.<BR>With the Arwen/Glorfindel substitution, most people will see this, someone will tell them "oh in the book it was actually an elflord called Glorfindel," and they'll remember that.<BR>But the changes to character traits are more insiduous. Even in debates among knowledgable people on message boards, I've noticed that they are thinking of the movie characters and not the book characters.

[HCIsland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> He said that he wouldn't make unnecessary changes and that he would stick as closely to the book as possible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Willie, I think your definition of what is possible is different then Jackson's. I bet he does feel he stayed as close as possible to the books while sticking to his commitment of making as good films as he could for the $300 million that was entrusted to him.<P>H.C.<P>Edited for typos.<p>[ January 28, 2003: Message edited by: HCIsland ]

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

I tend to agree with the Groundskeeper. Movies have dropped important characters before-take the movie "Ronin" with Bob DeNiro. Great movie, in the beginning it seemed as if Sean Bean's character would be important, and even cool, then he was nothing and they dumped him. I think (as I mentioned before) that it'd have shown Elrond's foresight and the power of Rivendell, and also that not even just any elf could tangle with the nine.

[Diamond18]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The thing is that PJ made promises. He said that he wouldn't make unnecessary changes and that he would stick as closely to the book as possible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You know, I don't think he did. At least, I never heard or read him say that. They often said they wanted to capture the spirit of the book. That's kind of intangible, so if they think they did in places you think they didn't, it's more of a difference of opinion than a flat out betrayal. Really, I can't think of a time PJ said, "We're going to stick as close to the book as humanly possible."<P>I have, however, read quotes by PJ warning us that TTT would be quite different from the book, more different than FotR was and RotK will be. I know that at least one time it was in the <B>Time</B> cover story back in December. I can't give an exact quote (I tried, but the website won't allow non-subscribers to view archived articles) but he basically said that he admitted that TTT would be quite different in places, but he hoped that if the movie was good enough, fans would forgive the "crimes I commit."<P>So one thing that I can't fault PJ for is being misleading. He always said that there would be changes. And in all the previews you saw Arwen over and over saying "If you want him come and claim him", so her role in the movie was pretty forthright.

[The Saucepan Man]

MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie, if you are going to quote me, please read all of my posts:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> There is simply no way that you could make three 3 hour films (or even one 2 hour film) for an audience today without having any more than one "active" female character. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So, you disagree with HC about political correctness? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>No, I don't. In my later post, I said:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I wasn't suggesting that her expanded role was an example of tokenism. It is just that, in our films today, we (quite rightly, I think) expect there to be both male and female characters involved in the action. And we expect a bit of romance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It's not about political correctness. It's about making a film that will appeal to the modern movie-goer (and not just the "Tolkien purists").<P>No disrespect, but had the films been made in the way that you suggest, they would have been the biggest flops of all time. There are simply not enough people out there who would be willing to sit through six 3 hour films that (even with the necessary omissions) followed the books in every detail.

[Darkside]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> No disrespect, but had the films been made in the way that you suggest, they would have been the biggest flops of all time. There are simply not enough people out there who would be willing to sit through six 3 hour films that (even with the necessary omissions) followed the books in every detail.<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I respectfully disagree. If they had done six 3 hour films, my friends and I would have gone to see them more than just one time. I think that there are many more "books first" Tolkien fans out there than people realize. I also think that movie goers aren't quite as stupid as Hollywood thinks. (I am crossing my fingers when I type that)

[Nevfeniel]

I personally liked Arwen's expanded role, and to be perfectly frank, when I read Fellowship for the first time, I had no idea that there was any kind of romance between Arwen and Aragorn. I didn't realize it until I saw the movie, then later read RotK and read about their marriage.

[HCIsland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If they had done six 3 hour films, my friends and I would have gone to see them more than just one time. I think that there are many more "books first" Tolkien fans out there than people realize. I also think that movie goers aren't quite as stupid as Hollywood thinks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm sorry Darkside, but there isn't enough fans of any book to warrent this kind of money devoted to a film solely for them. The truth is, not nearly the number of people read novels as watch movies. The film had to reach towards those that have not read the books or have only a passing familiarity with them.<P>I'm not asking anyone to love (or even like these films) but you've got to realize that this was the best you were going to get unless CG develops to the point that something of this scale can be attempted on a very limited budget and thus can shoot for a small, target audience.<P>By the way, I don't think enjoyment of these films relates to intelligence.<P>H.C.

[Lush]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I don't think enjoyment of these films relates to intelligence.<P>H.C.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Exactly, my friend. What it <I>really</I> relates to is the libido. Oh, Viggo. <P>

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Ok, first off, sorry to The Saucepan Man. I forgot to adress you before I quoted you, I meant no disrespect. I'll edit it. And to everyone else, I mean no disrespect at all when I post. I just get angry is all. So sorry if it ever seems that way.<P>Lush:<P>Yup, once again I have to complain about it <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If you think Peter Jackson is a "sell-out", then how do you purpose he should have gotten his financing? Maybe you could have pitched in? What's 270 million, right? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, he got most of that money from New Line. All New Line wanted was money. They didn't have any real big hits, so they took a risk in investing all that money through PJ. That's how they got it. And PJ, I believe, wanted to get his greedy little hands on some of the profits.<P>Well, I'm glad I didn't contribute any money at all. I definately would not have had I known what PJ would do.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Well, sex sells. Sex has "sold" when we all still lived in caves. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That's one way I view him as a sell out.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> but please don't turn this into some sort of moralist attack on Peter Jackson. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm sorry, but that is one thing I am doing. I don't intend to show any disrespect to any of you, but when desaling with the 'Arwen' issue, it goes back to PJ. And I don't intend to put all the blame on PJ. Some of it goes out to those money grubbin' hogs at New Line, and a lot goes out to those script-writers. Who were they? I think it was Fran Walsh and some other woman along with PJ. They're lucky PJ is so 'big' that no one notices what they did. I could go on and on and on about why it's their fault, but I'm too tired right now.<P>H.C. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Willie, I think your definition of what is possible is different then Jackson's. I bet he does feel he stayed as close as possible to the books while sticking to his commitment of making as good films as he could for the $300 million that was entrusted to him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, that's one of the problems with teh movie industry today. The directors and the fans are not always on the same page. Maybe he does feel that way, but I believe that he could have done a better job, and could have sticked closer to the books.<P>Lush <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As for Peter Jackson's "promises," I don't recall him ever saying "I promise" to me, or you, or anyone else. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>and Diamond18<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> You know, I don't think he did. At least, I never heard or read him say that. They often said they wanted to capture the spirit of the book. That's kind of intangible, so if they think they did in places you think they didn't, it's more of a difference of opinion than a flat out betrayal. Really, I can't think of a time PJ said, "We're going to stick as close to the book as humanly possible." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, I could have sworn I heard those promises somewhere. I'm not saying I'm right, but I am also not saying I am wrong. I will try very hard to look for them, especially in the extra's of FotR, extended and non-extended. I'm sorry if they never existed, but the way PJ discussed, led me to believe that. I just misunderstood him. BUT, that's only if those promises actually never existed. If they did, then PJ owes me, and many others, a lot. I've been really exhaused and busy lately, so it might be a while before I post on the outcome of my searching.<P>The Saucepan Man<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie, if you are going to quote me, please read all of my posts <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm sorry, but there were a lot of posts before mine, and I took the time to read each one. But, the later the post is, the less carefully I read. I probably would ahve noticed it if you had adressed it first, by saying something like, "It's not about political correctness.", like you just did. It's just easier for me that way, but once again, I'm sorry.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> No disrespect, but had the films been made in the way that you suggest, they would have been the biggest flops of all time. There are simply not enough people out there who would be willing to sit through six 3 hour films that (even with the necessary omissions) followed the books in every detail. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What Darkside said.<P>Oh, and thanks to Keeper of Dol Goldur and Darkside for the support. <P>H.C.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> but there isn't enough fans of any book to warrent this kind of money devoted to a film solely for them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I disagree. I believe that there are enough. I mean, wouldn't you? And I'm sure if I asked enough people, they would. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The film had to reach towards those that have not read the books or have only a passing familiarity with them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Then once again, it's for money. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I don't think enjoyment of these films relates to intelligence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I don't think it is either. The reason I didn't like it was because my expectations were higher, and TTT fell extremely short of them. And TTT wasn't as good as FotR. And PJ said one of his goals was to make each movie better than the next. So when he says that, I expect TTT to be better, but it wasn't.<P>Ok, can someone tell me what they mean by Tolkien selling the movie rights? Did J.R.R.Tolkien himself actually sell it, or was it a family member? Please help.

[Lush]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Did J.R.R.Tolkien himself actually sell it, or was it a family member? Please help.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes. JRR himself sold the movie rights. <P>As for calling Peter Jackson greedy...*sigh* You have to understand how the movie business works. How <I>any</I> business works for that matter. Potential investors balk if they feel that you are not going to make any profit, and you are left in the hole. And if the LOTR was filmed with solely with the purists in mind, it would have been a financial disaster for New Line, who are, by the way, a decently respected, well-rounded studio.

[Diamond18]

There is an article <A HREF="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/dx20020111x" TARGET=_blank>here</A> which mentions that Tolkien sold the rights:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Not that this stopped him from selling the film rights or prevent filmmakers from trying to find a way to recreate The Lord of the Rings on film. As far back as 1957, only a year after the final volume came out in the United States, sci-fi fan Forrest (Forrie) Ackerman and some friends got an option on the film rights, eventually producing concept art (which Tolkien loved) and a script (which Tolkien hated). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Thanks for the help, Lush and Diamond18.<P>I know that they need to make a profit, but if you look at the money they made on both films so far, it's way more than they needed. I think they would have less profits if it was done how I imagined (and hoped for), but still, it would at least suffice what they wanted for profits. I thought they were going to do this and that, and I thought PJ truly was doing it for the fans. But introducing people to LotR was a part, and surprisingly, I believe money was a big part. And thing I hate the most is that I feel that money was more important than the fans, but not by a little more, but by a lot. So I sometimes do call PJ greedy. However, I'm sure you feel differently.

[lindil]

I agree with the thought that PJ did way more for commercial acceptance than needs be. He was guaranteed a blockbuster, just by virtue of the budget he had and the material he was working with and a great cast.<P>The hoo-ha that he <I>had</I> to make it more commercial is tripe. He could have made it far more faithful and still made hundreds of millions. Sure sexing it up with Arwen probably set a few hearts a flutter, but it's abscence would hardly have doomed the movies.<P><BR>As for why I did not like Arwen in the Movies [I think she is the weakest link actually] due to and I will be blunt: her acting ability[merely average], her poorly directed and poorly re-written scenes and the simple fact that she does not even come onto <I>my</I> radar screen as one of the most beautiful women whoever walked in M-E.<BR>Oh and that breathy low voice which is so obviously faked, and not that well at that.<BR> <P>If I was Aragorn [in the movie that is], I would send Arwen the dear jane osanwe and start getting to know Eowyn better. <P>In the book she has mystery and power, is comprable in beauty only to Galadriel and is said to be Luthien revisted, in the same way Aragorn was said to be closer to Elendil than any of his forebearers.When Arwen is finally given dialouge in the RotK you feel you are truly in the presence of the most powerful woman in the world. If LT gets the same lines in ROtK, I will if what I have seen so far is any indication, be happy if it is soon over.<P>PJ completly sold out and wasted an opportunity to portray her true strengths in a subtle and unique way, instead of creatively incorporating her back story [other than the osanwe aspect] in a tasteful and unique way, he 'chose the way of pain', painful for many of us steeped in the Legendarium.<P><BR>She did not need to come riding out alone [ Elrond in the book calls her back from Lorien because the passage between is getting to dangerous!] against Black Riders!<BR>If you are going to replace Glorfindel [and I do not buy the "well he would only confuse people" argument, he could be prominent in the council and the later wedding, heck he is a more realistic choice for the helm's deep scene, though you could not have killed him] than use Legolas, PJ already has him filling in for Bilbo at the council.<P>Of course then you have to have Gandalf and elrond trigger the flood, and whaty a pity that would be, more faithfulness to the book.<P>She could still be shown in rivendell cozying up to Aragorn [ as was done ] and there can still be osanwe scenes in TTT [ hopefully less 'romantic' ones]. But PJ opted for the mainstream sell. <P>Too bad he could have saved the only romantic scene [in the books] for RotK<BR>and had it be all the more special.<P>No to me Arwen is the part that I seem most unable to enjoy when watching the movies. Galadriel, who in the original FotR disappointed me at first [ and I generally love K B's works] has grown on me, especially with the help of the extended Lorien scenes.<P>I will say at least the rumours that she would be a Xenarwen / Arwen Xenastar proved almost entirely untrue. But I also heard that much of her fighting scenes were delated due to her lack of ability in that area. And that I can well believe. Also the several petitions with thousands of signature's each may have had something to do with it , although I doubt PJ would ever admit it.<P>The death scene in the hallows was pretty good though, I will happily admit, but that is exactly the kind of thing Arwen needed, not pulling a sword on her fiance'.<P>No the main problem, and that which keeps PJ's LotR form living fully up to it's potential, is the fact that the allure of writing/filming his own LotR was too great for him, just as the Ring was too big for frodo.<P>I am reminded of sam's vision of 'the glorious triumphant gardener' as he passed into mordor, and how he had the sense to realize his humble place in the scheme of things, even though at the moment, he was truly the most important person in M-E [with the possible exception of Gandalf].<P>He put it asaide and devoted himself faultlessly to the task.<P>PJ, with that example literally in his hands, instead fell under the spell of fame and 'creativity' and instead of fully becoming a servant of the story, he chose to leave his footprints where all could see.<P>I still give it a 'B', and a few parts and A [ and a few C or D] but it clearly, by sticking more to the book, could have been and A or even an A+.<p>[ January 29, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Calavanya]

Don't get angry at me, I agree that Glorfindel shouldn't have been thrown out like that, but considering Arwen, I think Liv did her role OK. Anyway, I also agree with you who have mentioned the appendices. It really is explained there. Lot of things were unclear in my head before I've read those. Events that are happening as we read the book but aren't there. Where was she, and where was he, and what lead to this and that, bla, bla... Really, you should take that into account. Besides, who did PJ make the film for? Just for us, the loyal readers? I don't think so. He had to form something to attract more people... an elven maiden, beautiful and immortal! Makes people fill his bank account ... wether you like it or not, he's in entertainment business ....

[Rindowen]

Both TFoTR and TTT were INCREDIBLY wonderful films... if you simply divorce yourselves from the details of the books!! A film of any story is an INTERPRETATION, so you have to EXPECT that there are going to be some differences! JP did an AMAZING job of capturing the SPIRIT of the books... even if some of the little details were changed. You can all sit here and talk about how you would have filmed this differently.. well, then DO it! I challenge you! This had been JP's dream for 30-some years, and he made it come true! How many of you are making your dreams come true.<P>I don't mean to be harsh... although I know it's going to come across that way in mere words. However! I simply can't understand how you can all be so critical, so judgemental!<P>What JP did, in a sense, was bring this incredible story out to a wider audience! Hurray!! Book sales have SOARED since TFoTR was released! Isn't that FANTASTIC!?!<P>Personally, I thought that the way Arwen was portrayed in the movie was great.. and will help the audience to better understand and relate to her marriage to Aragorn in RoTK!<P>When one of you critics makes his own movie, PLEASE let me know! I'll be the first in line! But, until then, I am happy and pleased to see JP's fine versions!

[lindil]

Welcome to the downs Rinodowen, although you have picked a real mordorian thornbush to jum into early on !<P><BR>All quotes are from Rinodowen:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>"What JP did, in a sense, was bring this incredible story out to a wider audience!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>True, in a moderately bastardized form. <BR>As I said before I don't hate the movies, but it is sad that he succombed to the old saying about editors:<P>They are like dogs... because they don't like the smell of anything unless it has their pi$$ on it.<P>No offense meant at all Rinodwen, but how many times have you read the LotR? I have read it at least 20X's since 1977 or so.<P>It means alot to me on may levels, that is why I am at the Downs [feel free to see what I AM working on - instead of another LotR movie btw by hitting the Silm link below in my sig]. My point being that If someone is going to make a film of the widely acknowledged and voted upon Book of the Century, they are going to hear about just how well they did from the lovers of Tolien at the Barrow-Downs!<P>Maybe every other Fan-board out there is unanimous in their unstinted praise for the movies, but the Downs is by definition of it's founder, first and foremost a Site dedicated to the <I>Writings</I> of JRRT.<P>It tends to be a relatively sophisticated, well read and well educated [myself being a glaring exception ] crowd, that does not at all appreciate beig told, "make your own movie or..", As I have had need to say several times on this particular forum, this is a <B>Discussion Board</B>, every one is free to discuss, <B>criticize</B>, rewrite, emmend, and dissect, any part of any of the films or animations.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What JP did, in a sense, was bring this incredible story out to a wider audience! Hurray!! Book sales have SOARED since TFoTR was released! Isn't that FANTASTIC!?!<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes, but this further illustrates my point. People now have distorted views [especially regarding Arwen and say framir] to contend with. The impression a major production movie, shown in a large theatre is immense and I would imagenfor the average human it would take many re-reads to counteract or clear the images formed by the movie, if it can be done at all. There are several threads devoted to this very topic.<BR>I am glad many more folks are reading [at all!] and JRRT in particular, but it is bittersweet knowing that they will be reading through PJ's flawed filter.<P>Also please, if you seee a thread is titled in such a way that criticism is bound to be abundant inside, do not be so suprised. There are several threads in this forum where it is a giant praise fest for ol' PJ and his movies. Folks like myself who have criticisms aplenty, also should leave those threads to their topics. ANd not be wet blankets.<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>even if some of the little details were changed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>if it were only little details, hardly anyone here would criticize, but Faramir's character was destroyed, [and on this you can read JRRT's own words in a thread or floating around], Aragorn's motives were completely rearranged as were Elrond's. <P>There are of course many other major divergences [ and I am not talking about omissions such as the Barrow-Downs and Tom Bombadil - that nearly everyone agree's had to go due to time restraints] that could be mentioned, but they are abundantly catalouged elswhere, I am trying to address your point that makes the changes all seem minor in nature,To anyone well-steeped in the books they are not. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> You can all sit here and talk about how you would have filmed this differently.. well, then DO it! I challenge you! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This is an attitude that is not allowed. You have [perhaps without intending] invalidated the right to criticize by saying 'make yuor own'. <P>As the Founder of the board [ the Barrow-Wight] and the Mod [Estelyn] have both said " this is a <B>Discussion Board</B> and discussions, <B>criticism's</B>, commentary and analysis are allowed and encouraged.<P>I realize you are new here, so this may perhaps be new , if you have not been lurking for a while. So I do not wish to be a ton of bricks coming down on you. But please do not resort to the 'make your own movie line' anymore. It is a very worn-out and authoritatively proscribed reaction.<P>Again [ and I do mean it] welcome to the Downs <p>[ January 30, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Grimbold]

Considering that Liv Tyler is the daughter of Steve Tyler of Aerosmith fame (I prefer not to think about it), I think she has played the role well. Her adopted accent wasn't overdone particularly, and she doesn't draw too much attention to herself as an American celebrity, IMHO.

[Rindowen]

Lindil, <P>I appreciate your comments, and understand your point of view. However, as you said, this IS a discussion board and we are allowed to say what we please. I said what I pleased, trying not to be offensive in any way.<P>You are correct in assuming that I am not as "steeped" in the books as you are! Although I have read the books, I do not pretend to know all that they contain. That said, I think it is important to note that LoTR is fiction and not something to get so incredibly emotional about! It is a brilliant work, certainly! But is it worth being disrespectful to others?! I choose to think not.<P>I agree that criticism can be healthy. But I think that the WAYS in which people here are criticizing JP is deplorable! I think the use of the word "bastarizing" is cruel. I also think that judging him for wanting to make a living is wrong. There is a big difference between saying that you would like to have seen something portrayed differently, and openly criticizing the human being who showed it in his own way. <P>Can you get a taste of what it is I'm trying to say here? I think it's great that we have these message boards where we can share our thoughts!! That's why I'm here, of course! But I think there is a better way to conduct analysis and give opinions.<P>I also understand that folks are going to have a "jaded" image of the books if they've seen the movies first. But isn't that still better than never to have read the books at all?! <P>Thank you for your welcome! I appreciate it! I have so far very much enjoyed my stay at Barrow-Downs! I only hope that I won't be run out of here by angry Orcs who can't stand to here an opposing position!

[HCIsland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Considering that Liv Tyler is the daughter of Steve Tyler of Aerosmith fame (I prefer not to think about it), I think she has played the role well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Sorry, you lost me here Grimbold. Because she is the daughter of a rock star, that automatically means she can't act?<P>Rindowen, try not to get too upset. Some of the criticisms likely are too personal, but I think that is a result of many people having a very deep personal attachment to these books.<P>Personally, I agree with you. I was always expecting liberties to be taken with the book, and to be honest, I think PJ has, for the most part, successfully balanced the needs of Tolkien fans and the needs of movie fans. I think people need to realize though, that when push comes to shove, the movie fans come first.<P>I love these books, but I also love film and there has been many a book translation where the director has taken far more liberties then PJ has, many of these turned into great films. In The Shinning (a great film of a good book - though others will fight me here I'm sure) Kubrick kills off the book's hero the moment he walks in the door. Anyone seen The Lawnmower Man? (I don't know why I'm stuck on King). This stinker of a film was about virtual reality while the short story on which is was "based" was about a guy who run over cats with his lawnmower. The only thing they have in common is the title.<P>Yes, I know, these books are not Tolkien (they're not even close actually), but the point that I'm trying to make is that you should have seen these kind of things coming. It's what film makers do. You have every right to hate these films, but I don't understand the need to obsess about it. I don't know about you, but when I don't enjoy something, I leave it alone.<P>Anyway, why don't we all retreat to our respective corners, take a deep breath, and agree to disagree.<P>Group hug. <P>H.C.

[Fanniemae99]

The thing with the pendant is this, Arwen never gave the Evenstar jewel to Aragorn, in the end of ROTK she gives it to Frodo saying that when he became weary of ME he could take her spot on the ship to the West. And personally I think the movie would have been alot better without the sappy love story.

[Darkside]

Lindil:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> No the main problem, and that which keeps PJ's LotR form living fully up to it's potential, is the fact that the allure of writing/filming his own LotR was too great for him, just as the Ring was too big for frodo.<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Brilliant!!!! I don't think anyone could have said it better. <P>Willie: you will always have my support! It may be a bit slow in coming (I sometimes forget to read all the threads), but you will get it nonetheless.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Welcome Rindowen <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> LoTR is fiction and not something to get so incredibly emotional about! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>How can you say that? Fiction or nonfiction, it doesn't matter. Books can have a tremendous impact on people's lives. They can mean a lot to someone, and not just because they like the book (or sometimes hate it for that matter). Books can teach us things and effect our personality and other things in our lives. Sometimes books can do things for us that no other person could. You can become dearly attached to one, and then it becomes a part of you. It can feel as close as a sibling or even closer. It can just be so special in somones life that they can get so emotional over it, and they have every right to.<P>I'll quote H.C. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> that is a result of many people having a very deep personal attachment to these books. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It's just like that.<P>Rindowen, maybe the books dont mean as much to you as they do to me, but try to understand where we're coming from. Take the BarrowDowns for example. After a while, this place will almost feel like home to you. I love the atmosphere at this site. I've only been here for about 3 months, yet it feels like I've been here for ages. When this place becomes that close to you, you'll see what I mean. If you got in an argument over this site, and you were defending this site, how would you feel if someone told you not to get so emotional over it? You'd probably feel shocked, angry, insulted, and many more feelings, but most of all, you wouldn't like it.<P>I'm not angry at you. Some people just don't realize what they say somtimes. Or they forget, or just don't want to acknowledge it. Everybody makes mistakes, sometimes big, sometimes small. I know I have. And sometimes people just don't think before they do something. I have also done that. It's ok if you meant no harm. Just try to think about it first. <P>Darkside <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Willie: you will always have my support! It may be a bit slow in coming (I sometimes forget to read all the threads), but you will get it nonetheless. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>And you have my support.

[lindil]

All quotes are from Rindowen:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>However, as you said, this IS a discussion board and we are allowed to say what we please. I said what I pleased, trying not to be offensive in any way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>.<P>You were tryng to stifle criticism of the movie by saying each person who does so should make their own. That has been done so many times it is has been formally dis-allowed.<BR>Estelyn has specifically rlued such an across the board absurdity [200 miliion as the price to criticize ] as not within the bounds of polite discourse allowed here at the Downs.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You are correct in assuming that I am not as "steeped" in the books as you are! Although I have read the books, I do not pretend to know all that they contain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Nor do I. My point was not 'I have read it more times than you so I ____[fill in the blank].' But that to people who have spent decades experiencing a very refined peice of art in it's original form are then offered another interpretation, those steeped in the original will experience the movies very differently from those who see the movies first or perhaps after one reading. I not knowing your previous experience of the books did not make any assumptions re: your exsposure to the Books, and only spoke for myself.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>That said, I think it is important to note that LoTR is fiction and not something to get so incredibly emotional about!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I can assure, I am not emotional about it[although some will argue that should not matter]at all [in the sense of worked up or angry or defensive]. I am simply stating my views forcefully and I hope clearly.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It is a brilliant work, certainly! But is it worth being disrespectful to others?! I choose to think not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I am sorry, how was I disrespectful?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I agree that criticism can be healthy. But I think that the WAYS in which people here are criticizing JP is deplorable!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Is anyone criticizing PJ? I had not noticed that, although I do not read to many movie threads. I have however seen alot of criticism of his movie and especially his interpretation.<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I think the use of the word "bastar[d]izing" is cruel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You may think of it as cruel if you like, but it is meant, rather literally in the sense of the movie being <I>debased, corrupt</I> American Heritage Dictionary [2nd college edition].<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I also think that judging him for wanting to make a living is wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I did not do so. I did say <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I agree with the thought that PJ did way more for commercial acceptance than needs be. He was guaranteed a blockbuster, just by virtue of the budget he had and the material he was working with and a great cast.<BR>The hoo-ha that he had to make it more commercial is tripe. He could have made it far more faithful and still made hundreds of millions. Sure sexing it up with Arwen probably set a few hearts a flutter, but it's abscence would hardly have doomed the movies.<P><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>quotes from Rindowen resumed:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><P>I also understand that folks are going to have a "jaded" image of the books if they've seen the movies first. But isn't that still better than never to have read the books at all?! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Are you saying that the "author of the Century/Book of the Century" needs a movie for advertisement? hmmm....<P> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Thank you for your welcome! I appreciate it! I have so far very much enjoyed my stay at Barrow-Downs! I only hope that I won't be run out of here by angry Orcs who can't stand to here an opposing position! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You are weoclme for the welcome, and relax, no one will run you out of here, some do choose to leave though due to the orientation of the Downs as primarily a literary Discussion board that happens to have a movie forum.<P>by the way you weren't calling me an angry orc were you? <P>darkside, I am glad you appreciated my analogy. I think it really cut's to the heart of the responsibility anyone who approaches a work like the LotR truly has.<p>[ January 30, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Princess of Rivendell]

I for one thought arwen was great in the movie, i love the scene with her ans frodo run away from the black riders.i wished that Tolkien would have written more about her.oh well,thats just what i think. :<P> : princess of rivendell & mordor :<P><BR>Smeagol: Argh!! What’s he doing! Stupid fat hobbit! You ruins it!<BR>Sam: What’s to ruin? There’s hardly any meat on ‘em. <BR>Sam: What we need is a few good taters.<BR>Gollum: What’s taters, preciousss? What’s taters uh?<BR>Sam: PO-TAY-TOES! Boil ‘em. Mash ‘em. Stick ‘em in a stew. Lovely big golden chips with a nice piece of fried fish.... <BR>Smeagol: Pbbbttt!! <BR>Sam: Even you couldn’t say no to that. <BR>Smeagol: Oh yes we could! Spoiling nice fish... " Give it to usss rrraw... and wrrriggling! . You keep nasty chips". <BR>Sam: You’re hopeless.<BR>---The Lord Of The Rings:The Two Towers---

[Vardamar]

Keeping in mind that everyone is entiteled to their own opinion. My opinion is that no matter how much the movie strayed from the books, it still was (put in a structure that holds back water which name beings with a D and end with a M with an A inbetween) to see the books come to life.<BR>I mean who here didnt like Helms Deep. Personally i thought the elves were a real nice touch. <BR>Getting back to the point it was a wonderful movie and people should stop complaning. Agian this is just my opinion.

[lindil]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Getting back to the point it was a wonderful movie and people should stop complaning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Vardamar, then why on earth do you come to a thread entitled, 'why people don't like Arwen?'<P>this thread is obviously geared towards critique.<P>If you want to say Liv did a great job, then fine, support her, but to come to a thread started for the purpose of critique and then tell us to stop 'complaining' is rather mind-boggling.<P>Again for everyone plain and clear.<P><B>It is not allowed on the Downs to tell people to not criticize the Movie or to tell them to make their own before they criticize it. Just as flaming is not allowed.</B><P>If you doubt me PM Estelyn or The Barrow Wight.<P>Any further breaches of this on this thread that I catch will be reported.<P>I really do not like being policeman at all, but all of my warnings have gone unheeded.<P>lindil - Moderator of the New Silmarillion Forums

[The Saucepan Man]

Happy haunting Rindowen. Wow! You have certainly whipped up a hornet's nest (to mix my metaphors), but then discussion of this particular topic always seems to do just that.<P>I must admit that, when I first came to the Downs, I was quite taken aback by some of the anger directed towards Jackson & co. I agree with Rindowen that it occasionally tends to the extreme. It was to investigate why this was that I started <A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=001698" TARGET=_blank>this thread</A>. In fact, some of the views that have since been very clearly expressed on this thread (and others) go a good way towards providing the explanation that I was looking for.<P>What I still don't quite understand is why those who dislike the films or feel that Jackson has "sold out" in some way, or betrayed JRRT's works, cannot just ignore them and get on with enjoying the books. As I have said many times already, the books are still there. They have not magically disappeared and been replaced by the films. Who cares if some people watch the film and never read the books and think that that is all there is to Tolkien? It's just not one of those things that I lie awake at night thinking about. <P>To pick up on a few points that have been made:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> You can all sit here and talk about how you would have filmed this differently.. well, then DO it! I challenge you! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>lindil, I don't think that Rindowen was seeking to stifle people's opinions about the films. I interpret this simply as a graphic illustration of Rindowen's <B>opinion</B> that Jackson had a very difficult task and that it would have been nigh on impossible for anyone to make a commercially successful film that would have satisfied every fan of JRRT's works. It is an opinion that I happen to share, although I think that you make good arguments in seeking to put across a different point of view.<P>But this can cut both ways. It has been suggested on some threads that anyone who enjoys the films does not truly appreciate the books or is not be a true Tolkien "fan". I appreciate that you are not saying this, but it is illustrative of how extreme criticisms of the films can upset those who have been lifelong Tolkien "fans" and yet still enjoy the films and give them the impression that their opinions are being stifled. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> People now have distorted views [especially regarding Arwen and say framir] to contend with. The impression a major production movie, shown in a large theatre is immense and I would imagenfor the average human it would take many re-reads to counteract or clear the images formed by the movie, if it can be done at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think that you are being a bit unfair on people who have been introduced to the books by the films (I am married to one such person). Anyone who is sophisticated enough to read and enjoy the books is, I am sure, capable of forming their own opinions on what they read. Their visualisation might be affected by the films (although I see the visualisation of Tolkien's world as one of the major strengths of the films), but their views on the characters, their peronalities and their motives will, I believe, be formed on the basis of what they read, not what they have seen on the screen. The wonderful way in which the books are written should almost guarantee this, surely?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> LoTR is fiction and not something to get so incredibly emotional about! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This is where I don't agree with you, Rindowen. Great works of literature (as with any form of art) are just the sort of things that we should get emotional about. I too have an emotional attachment to the books, having first read them some 25 years ago. But I don't find that this precludes my enjoyment of the films. Nor do the films impair the emotion that I feel for the books.<P>One final point:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> darkside, I am glad you appreciated my analogy. I think it really cut's to the heart of the responsibility anyone who approaches a work like the LotR truly has. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>lindil, surely anyone who is given a huge amount of money to make a series of blockbuster films has a responsibility to recoup the outlay. And surely they are entitled to make a tidy sum for themselves, having made the effort to do so. I know that we disagree on this point, but I really believe that, had some of the changes from the book not been made (Arwen's extended role being one of these), Jackson would not have suceeded in discharging that responsibility.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

lindil is right. Too many times have I been told to stop complaining about something (usually something in the movies), and especially when it's in a thread where half or the whole is based on criticisms and complaints. And then sometimes I got so fed up, I told or asked them to leave the thread. They actually should have left if they were going to complain about us complaining about the movie. And too many times have I been told to go make my own if I didn't like PJ's. That's just so ridiculous. If I had a nickel for everytime I've been told that, I probably would have enough money to make my own movie. But I just wish people would stop doing that. And some other things I'd like people to stop doing is telling me that I couldn't do a better job than PJ. If I had teh training he had, and teh budget, I most likely could have. And one other thing (this mainly pertains to the new downers), can people please post properly. Just capitalize words at teh beginning of each sentence, capitaliaze I's and leave a space between sentences. It just looks so dumpy and ticky-tacky, and it's sometimes hard to read. I assume you get the picture. And thanks to all those who do type correctly and thanks to those who don't do the things I mentioned.<P>But mainly, can people stop telling us we shouldn't complain. This thread is going to have complaints about Arwen whether you like it or not. And every time someone tells us that, it screws up the discussion in the thread.<P>And I just remembered another thing. This thread is a discussion about why you do NOT like Arwen in the movies, so none of us want to hear why you do like her in the movies.

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> this thread is obviously geared towards critique.<P>If you want to say Liv did a great job, then fine, support her, but to come to a thread started for the purpose of critique and then tell us to stop 'complaining' is rather mind-boggling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>lindil, surely people are entitled to come to a thread that is offering a critique of the films and put forward alternative views in support of them. And Varadmar did make clear that this was his/her opinion.

[Tar-Palantir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> In fact, some of the views that have since been very clearly expressed on this thread (and others) go a good way towards providing the explanation that I was looking for.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree Mr. SaucepanMan. And I feel like I understand more where the Willie and Lindil camp is coming from. I speak for myself only when I say this, but quite frankly it is easy to get intimidated by some of these firmly worded, obviously well informed, lengthy, and generally eloquently worded posts. This being the case, it does occasionally feel as though there are "angry Orcs" running about and putting the less knowledgeable of JRRT on the defensive. I am not defending posts that are worthy of rebuke, just sharing that maybe it goes with the territory in a 'movie' forum. <P>Now! To the subject at hand. Arwen, the scene stealing she-devil, is a problem chiefly because she is not supposed to be there. What does this mean? <BR>1)The story is changed<BR>2)This creates a need to cut others pieces out<BR>3)They cut out Glorfindel, shortened time in TTT for the other characters' (Fangorn for instance)<BR>4)You now have a new central character, meaning her role in RotK will be expanded too, which in turn means other events/timelines of RotK will be cut out or altered to suit her.<BR>5)They have to make up dialogue for her since JRRT did not write much of it, this can seem out of place and cheeeesy.<BR>6) etc...<P>I disagree with PJ knocking in this instance (unless he botches RotK beyond recall) because I think he thought he HAD to do it (rightly or wrongly we'll never know, we can only guess), and it was not solely for money. Dollars to donuts (remember that phrase Willie? ) it was Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens that convinced him of it. He was brainwashed!<P>PS- Willie and Lindil - sorry to call you a 'camp', but I think you know what I mean.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

The Saucepan Man:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> What I still don't quite understand is why those who dislike the films or feel that Jackson has "sold out" in some way, or betrayed JRRT's works, cannot just ignore them and get on with enjoying the books. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, I have told you my reason. Here's what I said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The reason I didn't like it was because my expectations were higher, and TTT fell extremely short of them. And TTT wasn't as good as FotR. And PJ said one of his goals was to make each movie better than the next. So when he says that, I expect TTT to be better, but it wasn't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> and <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> That is one feeling I hate; getting your hopes up and having them shattered. I hate being tricked and decieved like I was with TTT, and even parts of FotR. And, "they want the book on the screen, scene by scene, chapter by chapter.", well that's what I wanted, and I do realize you don't always get what you want. I didn't care that much about The Old Forest, Tom Bombadil, and The Barrow Downs (my favorite part) being left out. Why? Because it wasn't all that important, and it wasn't twisted and transformed, like the did in many parts of TTT film. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>So I had high expectations for TTT, but it didn't reach my expectations. It's dissapointing. And I had my hopes up for a long time, but then they were shattered. I loathe that feeling. But it's just something that really ticks us off. We could ignore it, but I think it is better to discuss it. And one thing that I myself don't quite understand is why does everyone care so much? So what if we hate Arwen in the movies. Let us, we have every right to. And whay can't you just ignore our complaints. If you really thin about it, it's just so simple, in fact, it's easier than posting on why you don't like our complaints or why you can't understand wy we complain. And I am not just talking to The Saucepan Man here, it goes for a lot of people also. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Who cares if some people watch the film and never read the books and think that that is all there is to Tolkien? It's just not one of those things that I lie awake at night thinking about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>To me, it's disrespect in a sense, but I don't lie awake at night pondering that. I just discuss it here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> surely people are entitled to come to a thread that is offering a critique of the films and put forward alternative views in support of them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>But not in this case. This thread is a one-sided critique on Arwen in the film. It's only supposed to be discussing why people do not like her in the movies, not why you do like her in the movies, and I think that was the point that lindil was trying to get across. If you want to start a thread on why you like her in the movies, by all means go ahead, and I strongly urge that you do. If you see somthing in this thread tht is very debateable and that you strongly disagree with, then start a new thread on it, rather than coming in here and saying why you disagree. Because when you do that, it gets the discussion off track, and then more and more people come in and disrupt the main topic and it is very hard to get back to what was originally being discussed. It's even happening right now as we post. And then if it goes farther, the thread might get closed by the moderator because it has gotten so bad. And that sucks for the person who started teh topic, and for the people who took the time to post insightful points on it. Then it might be continued in a new thread, but then all the points previously made are left in the closed thread. And the thread isn't nearly as productive as the original.<P>Tar-Palantir<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> it is easy to get intimidated by some of these firmly worded, obviously well informed, lengthy, and generally eloquently worded posts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Don't get intimadated by them, and this goes to everyone else. Sometimes it might be a lot to digest, especially when you come in to a thread really late. I usally just take the parts piece by piece as I did in my first post in this thread. But if you feel intimadated, then rise up to the challenge. Sometimes you'll be pleasently surprised. <P>Great post Tar-Palantir, all of it.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Dollars to donuts (remember that phrase Willie? ) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I sure do. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> PS- Willie and Lindil - sorry to call you a 'camp', but I think you know what I mean. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It's alright, I know what you mean. <P>Oh yeah Tar-Palantir, I agree with 1-6 on the Arwen issue.<p>[ January 30, 2003: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

[Diamond18]

Ah, no. Sorry. This thread was <B>not</B> designed as an Arwen Hatersmoot. What kind of a discussion is that? This was not titled, "101 Reasons Why Arwen Sucks". Let me repost (in full) the opening post for this thread, by Lily Ahern:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Why don't people like Arwen in the movie , I know that they gave her an extended piece but that is no reason to rag on her! <BR>P.J (Peter Jackson)also had round out the movie with a bit of romance . If they didn't have arwen who would they have ? Eowyn? too early in the first one and in the books eowyn marries faramir then who would they have? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So, obviously, the whole point is to have people talk about the pros and cons of Arwen. So yes, to say "don't complain about Arwen here" is wrong, but it is also wrong to say:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> This thread is a one-sided critique on Arwen in the film. It's only supposed to be discussing why people do not like her in the movies, not why you do like her in the movies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And one thing that I myself don't quite understand is why does everyone care so much? So what if we hate Arwen in the movies. Let us, we have every right to. And whay can't you just ignore our complaints. If you really thin about it, it's just so simple, in fact, it's easier than posting on why you don't like our complaints or why you can't understand wy we complain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>But I don't dislike your complaints, Willie. And I have no problem with you disliking the films. I am just interested in finding out why you feel so strongly about it. When I came out of TTT after seeing it for the first time, I had very mixed feelings, and these threads have helped me to work out how I feel about it. I certainly enjoyed the film much more second time round, because I wasn't so preoccupied with all these changes.<P>Maybe I'm wrong, but I understood that threads like this were supposed to involve discussion, rather than unremitting agreement. Most threads would surely be rather dull and short-lived if everyone agreed on them. Having read the posts, I can see why some people didn't like Arwen in the films and why some people did. I like to see both sides.<P>You are right that this thread has rather expanded beyond its original topic, but isn't that just the way of threads! And, it would be difficult to respond directly to points made on this thread by posting them elsewhere.

[Lush]

<B>lindil</B>, you're older than I am, have hung around this board much longer, have read the books more times than I probably ever will (I doubt I'll live that long ), and are involved in a super-duper challening Silmarillion project of astounding complexity, and I respect all that sincerely.<P>However, I have perceived a thinly veiled condescension in your posts on this thread, and I am calling you on it, because it is, by default, directed at me. <P>Then it is as follows:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No offense meant at all Rinodwen, but how many times have you read the LotR? I have read it at least 20X's since 1977 or so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, if we're going to be whipping out our credentials here, my guess is that I am going to come up dreadfully short, so I won't even bother with that. I understand though that for a person with such a long "kinship" with a special work of art, movies like Jackson's are bound to hurt and offend. But maybe you should also recognize this emotional involvement in yourself, and understand, perhaps, that not all people will react this way to PJ's Arwen, Faramir, Aragorn, et al. And your seniority as a means of politely keeping them in place does little for the debate, in my opinion.<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I am glad many more folks are reading [at all!] and JRRT in particular, but it is bittersweet knowing that they will be reading through PJ's flawed filter.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, as someone who couldn't be bothered to even flip through the LOTR before I saw PJ's "Fellowship" (what can I say? I thought I had left fantasy behind in middle school somewhere), I was <I>delighted</I> to have all of a sudden discovered a wonderful book, and grateful to the one person who had lead me to it, Peter Jackson, whether he did it in a heavy-handed, Hollywod-esque manner or not. A year later, I was in the front row, cringing at every word Faramir said (not that it prevented me from admiring those lips and eyes, but that was almost all he had going for him at that point anyway), but enjoying myself nonetheless. And for me, Jackson's movies were worth it. And for you to tell me that because of that I am somehow deficient in my understanding/enjoyment/whatever of Tolkien, is <I>not very cool</I>. Who knows, maybe in a decade I will be reading <I>The Hobbit</I> to some bouncy little "spawn of Lush" (that'll be the day!), and I will <I>still</I> be remembering the fact that it was all due to Peter Jackson. <P>Once again, I may not have been cherishing the book for over twenty years, therefore resulting in a slightly more casual attitude toward PJ's choices, <I>especially</I> regarding Arwen, but perhaps the fact that I have a slightly cooler head about this allows me to understand where he's coming from<P>And, something like:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>He was guaranteed a blockbuster, just by virtue of the budget he had and the material he was working with and a great cast. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Is, in my opinion, very naive. Nothing is guaranteed in this world, <I>particularly</I> in the movie business. Perhaps you ought to flip through a few pages of filmmaking history; perhaps we <I>all</I> ought to be reminded of the example of how "Cleopatra" nearly bankrupted Fox, and it had the young Liz Taylor in it.<p>[ January 30, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Oh man Diamond18, you just really ticked me off. Before I get started I want to say that I am angry right now. I don't mean disrespect to you and don't mean to insult you in any way, but it might seem like it. Even though I am mad, I enjoy arguing like this, because it gets so intense. It may sound wierd, but I like the thrill. So I don't mean to insult you in any way. <P>Ok, let me get started. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Ah, no. Sorry. This thread was not designed as an Arwen Hatersmoot. What kind of a discussion is that? This was not titled, "101 Reasons Why Arwen Sucks". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ummm, no, yo misunderstand me. Sorry, it's not what you think. You are right that this is not an Arwen Hatersmoot and it is not titled, "101 Reasons Why Arwen Sucks", but when did I ever say it was. And <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Let me repost (in full) the opening post for this thread, by Lily Ahern <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I can read myself Diamond18. In fact, I checked the original post before the last time I posted to make sure I was right. I think you need to reread it yourself, so here it is <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Why don't people like Arwen in the movie , I know that they gave her an extended piece but that is no reason to rag on her! <BR>P.J (Peter Jackson)also had round out the movie with a bit of romance . If they didn't have arwen who would they have ? Eowyn? too early in the first one and in the books eowyn marries faramir then who would they have? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>There, did you read it?<P>You said:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So, obviously, the whole point is to have people talk about the pros and cons of Arwen. So yes, to say "don't complain about Arwen here" is wrong, but it is also wrong to say <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Umm, no. It is not to talk about the pros and cons of Arwen. If it were, it would be, "Why do people like or not like Arwen in the movie...", but it is not. It is purely to discuss the cons. Because people don't hate Arwen in the movie because of her pros.<P>It is not wrong to say <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> This thread is a one-sided critique on Arwen in the film. It's only supposed to be discussing why people do not like her in the movies, not why you do like her in the movies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Why? Because it is a one-sided critique on Arwen in the film. It has nothing to do with pros of her at all. It is to discuss why people do not like Arwen in the movies. <B>It is not to discuss why they do.</B><P>Understand?<P>And The Saucepan Man, I'll reply later because I have to go now, sorry.<P>And remember Diamond18, I don't mean any offense .

[Hirilaelin]

I also personally like Arwen's expanded role. When I read the books, I was very confused with the whole Glorfindel rescue. I also didn't have the slightest clue about any romance until I read it a few times. So, my final answer is: Arwen's role is great in my opinion. <P>~Hirilaelin

[Diamond18]

Sorry to get you ticked, Willie...because I really don't feel angry myself about anything. So if any of the following seems like I did take offense, it shouldn't, because I didn't. It just gives me a change to explain further. <P>An Arwen Hatersmoot is my definition of:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This thread is a discussion about why you do NOT like Arwen in the movies, so none of us want to hear why you do like her in the movies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This thread is a one-sided critique on Arwen in the film. It's only supposed to be discussing why people do not like her in the movies, not why you do like her in the movies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What you described sounds an awful lot like a series of posts detailing all the negative things you can think of, hence, my observation of it as "101 Reasons Why Arwen Sucks". If I misunderstand you, it is because I literally interpret what you type as meaning just what you typed. You can hardly blame me for that.<P>Lily Ahern defended Arwen in her post. That's a fact. So, right off the bat that was an invitation for opposing viewpoints. The topic starter herself did what you said the thread isn't about! Now, in both these quotes you just did what lindil so kindly pointed out is prohibited: you told someone with different opinions to bug off. This goes for everyone, not just people who think that no one should complain about the movie. There should be both kinds of posts in this thread.<P>And that also goes for whatever we're talking about, be it Arwen or anything else. Arwen isn't even a great big deal to me, but the way discussions are held on Barrow Downs threads are, so that explains the deviation from the initial topic that this post entails. No one can go on discussing productively until it's clear what the discussion is about. That seems to be in question.<p>[ January 31, 2003: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

The Saucepan Man<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> this thread has rather expanded beyond its original topic, but isn't that just the way of threads! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yeah, threads always seem to do that. I just thought, "Why they are called 'threads'?", when I read your post. Well, I think of it as a spider web. It starts off from a single thread, but the farther it goes, the more it spreads out and the bigger it gets. It can get complicated and tangled or sometimes, it can be clear and neat. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> it would be difficult to respond directly to points made on this thread by posting them elsewhere. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes, but it's seems more organized that way. Rather than having the discussion stray from the topic, you can continue the 'side-topic' in another thread. Not many people decide to do that. Sometimes it's hard to do that. But it really can be beneficial if you continued the discussion in another topic if it clearly strays from the topic of the original post. But it can't always happen.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But I don't dislike your complaints, Willie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Thanks . But I wasn't singling you out. I was refering to everyone who does care. Because not everyone is interested like you are, so it's hard to say a general statement like that.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Maybe I'm wrong, but I understood that threads like this were supposed to involve discussion, rather than unremitting agreement. Most threads would surely be rather dull and short-lived if everyone agreed on them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, they can be like that if it is a thread that is based on whether someone agrees/disagrees with a topic, and everyone agrees (or disagrees). But that's not the case here. This thread was specifically intended for a one-sided critique on why people didn't like Arwen in the movies. Now, it may be boring because the discussion is one-sided, but that's ok. This thread was created by the the person with the original post, and that person (Lily Ahern) wanted to find something out. And Lily Ahern isn't going to find out what she wanted from posts that state the pros of Arwen, and no cons. Therefore, when you don't state why you don't like Arwen in the movies, you are not contributing to the thread and it is not the right thing to do. Keep reading, but I am going to shift over to Diamond18:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Lily Ahern defended Arwen in her post. That's a fact. So, right off the bat that was an invitation for opposing viewpoints. The topic starter herself did what you said the thread isn't about! Now, in both these quotes you just did what lindil so kindly pointed out is prohibited: you told someone with different opinions to bug off. This goes for everyone, not just people who think that no one should complain about the movie. There should be both kinds of posts in this thread. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ok, just because she defended Arwen, doesn't mean it was ok for anyone else to defend her in this thread. It wasn't an invitation for opposing viewpoints. It was just stating that Lily Ahern liked Arwen in the movie, but can't understand why others didn't. So to find out, Lily Ahern asks those who didn't like her in the movie to state why. This thread does not progress when people state why they did like Arwen in the movie, it only progresses when they state why tehy didn't like her. All threads are not the same. You have to follow the guidelines for the particular section of the forum, but you also have to follow the guidelines that the thread-starter sets.<P>And I think the only way that this can get cleared up is for Lily Ahern to clearly set the guidelines. So my side of the argument is based on what Lily Ahern said in the original post. She only wants the cons of Arwen. It's what she [indirectly] said in the original post. And I'll quote you Diamond18 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If I misunderstand you, it is because I literally interpret what you type as meaning just what you typed. You can hardly blame me for that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So if i misunderstand Lily Ahern, it's because I took her post literally, and Diamond18, you can hardly blame me for that. So you can see where I'm coming from, as I can you. I would just hope that Lily Ahern sets things straight here. I'll PM Lily Ahern. I believe that the topic-starter has a responsibility. And that includes moderating their own threads, setting clear guidelines, and if they fould out what they needed to know, they shoud do one of two things; 1.Change the guidelines, in this case it would allow and open discussion, and tehy would not have to moderate if they didn't want to after that. [or] 2.Close the thread; just end it there. And I would hope they would choose 1 instead of 2. I wish that this responsibility would be part of the guidelines of the forums.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> you told someone with different opinions to bug off <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I didn't do that. I just pointed out that opposing views are not allowed here (from what I infered from the original post). I said they could make their own thread where opposing views are allowed.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Sorry to get you ticked, Willie...because I really don't feel angry myself about anything. So if any of the following seems like I did take offense, it shouldn't, because I didn't. It just gives me a change to explain further. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Oh, it's ok. I enjoy it, as strange as that sounds. I don't take offense, I can just get frustrated and angry, but that doesn't mean I'm angry at you. I love the heat of the argument, don't you? This is one reason I love the Barrow-Downs so much.<P>Lush<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Well, as someone who couldn't be bothered to even flip through the LOTR before I saw PJ's "Fellowship" (what can I say? I thought I had left fantasy behind in middle school somewhere), I was delighted to have all of a sudden discovered a wonderful book, and grateful to the one person who had lead me to it, Peter Jackson, whether he did it in a heavy-handed, Hollywod-esque manner or not. A year later, I was in the front row, cringing at every word Faramir said (not that it prevented me from admiring those lips and eyes, but that was almost all he had going for him at that point anyway), but enjoying myself nonetheless. And for me, Jackson's movies were worth it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well that's kind of paradoxical (if that's even a word). Someone once called me selfish because I said I would like it better if PJ never made the movie. I felt it as an insult to the Tolkien fans (of the books before teh movie), myself being one. He called me selfish becuase if PJ never made the movies, many people would not have been introduced to the books. Which is true, but that is not why I wish it was never made. It is just so insulting to me (and to Tolkien of course). But it's just a great thing that came out of something I view as bad. It's just so bittersweet. But if it came down to it, and I had to choose if PJ would or would not make the films, I guess I'd choose to have Pj make them....there I go again rambling on. There was a point I was trying to make but now I forgot what it was and can't remember where I was going with this story. I really hate that. Sorry for wasting anyone's time.

[lindil]

Ok there are about a hundred points to respond to so I know I won't get them all...<P>#1] Lush, I appreciate your feeling a need to call me on what you perceived as a subtle bullying by seniority, if were true, I would agree, but a careful reading of my above posts will reveal that I did not bring up the " I have read it 20 X's" to intimidate anyone, there are plenty of folks on the board who have read it more than myself, but it was brought up solely to explain the depth of reponse some 'oldtimers' have towards PJ's 'vision' of the LotR.<P>And more so to see of R's response and defensiveness of the movie's/PJ was based on a new found familiarity with M-E.<P>She would not be wrong [ nor do I consider you to be] to be grateful to PJ for exposing them to M-E if he had in fact done so, but I thought that the self-observation of that [if it was true, which I still do not knowin R's case] would perhaps teach her much regarding the strong feelings and responses of the 'bookists'. I hope that is all as transparent as I am trying to make it. I tend to [due to my 'long -postedness' try and state my motives more minimally at times, hoping I will not have to explain them [and thus make my posts even longer - I am comong to the conclusion that it is a failed tactic ].<P>the full context, and my intentions can I hope be revealed by the inclusion of the following lines <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No offense meant at all Rinodwen, but how many times have you read the LotR? I have read it at least 20X's since 1977 or so.<P>It means alot to me on may levels, that is why I am at the Downs [feel free to see what I AM working on - instead of another LotR movie btw by hitting the Silm link below in my sig]. My point being that If someone is going to make a film of the widely acknowledged and voted upon Book of the Century, they are going to hear about just how well they did from the lovers of Tolien at the Barrow-Downs!<P>Maybe every other Fan-board out there is unanimous in their unstinted praise for the movies, but the Downs is by definition of it's founder, first and foremost a Site dedicated to the Writings of JRRT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>I then followed it up with<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Nor do I. My point was not 'I have read it more times than you so I ____[fill in the blank].' But that to people who have spent decades experiencing a very refined peice of art in it's original form are then offered another interpretation, those steeped in the original will experience the movies very differently from those who see the movies first or perhaps after one reading. I not knowing your previous experience of the books did not make any assumptions re: your exsposure to the Books, and only spoke for myself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> in my next post.<P>I was invoking my experience only to explain my reactions and responses which had been called into question by: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>How many of you are making your dreams come true.<BR>I don't mean to be harsh... although I know it's going to come across that way in mere words. However! I simply can't understand how you can all be so critical, so judgemental! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think you will agree Lush, that frequent <BR>exposure and love for something may render a different reaction of subject <I>x</I> than will a first reaction. <P>Thus is the reason I think for the vast difference of reaction here at the Downs for thos who give the movie's such vastly different reviews. <P>The only time I did [and it was deliberate]<BR>throw any weight around was to let folks know the boundaries of discourse here, and that certain aspects were being repeatedly violated. I am glad to say that while I haev not read every line of every intervening post, the across the board negations [ 'why complain' and ' make your own movie'] seem to have ceased. And fot hat I am thankful, those points [and they are rreally more attitudes, I would argue]only serve to inflame and already hot-blooded [for some] issue. By the way, for me the whole purpose of discussing these thing is to share point's of view. Invariably, i learn new things in almost any thread I choose to visit, and I do my best to offer back what I can, not in a spirit of trying to convince people so much as to exteriorize certain thoughts, so they become clearer and perhaps less opaque to myself, and also to discover new views. If someone can fully enjoy the movies and the books and feels no tension or discord between them - wonderful! I saw a thead entilted 'why don't people like arwen in the movie?' and since i had a strong opinion and a fwe thoughts I wanted to chime in...<P>Which brings me to the next point:<P>I stated earlier <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Also please, if you seee a thread is titled in such a way that criticism is bound to be abundant inside, do not be so suprised. There are several threads in this forum where it is a giant praise fest for ol' PJ and his movies. Folks like myself who have criticisms aplenty, also should leave those threads to their topics. And not be wet blankets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> and then in response to Vardamar's post asking to people to 'stop complaining"<BR>I posted <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Vardamar, then why on earth do you come to a thread entitled, 'why people don't like Arwen?'<P>this thread is obviously geared towards critique.<P>If you want to say Liv did a great job, then fine, support her, but to come to a thread started for the purpose of critique and then tell us to stop 'complaining' is rather mind-boggling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It seems I slightly mis-characterized the original intent of the thread [while being faithful to it in my responses I hope] by stating it was solely for critique, this was only 1/2 correct it seems , and i apologize to Lily Ahern for that. However my point of reply remains 100% valid. Do not come to a thread devoted to exploring a controversy and then tell people to stop discussing or stating the 'negative' side of it. The rules of discussion at the Downs do not allow for that. As for threads devoted to a PJ fan - club or something similar, for me to go there and unleash a broadside would be rude, but if it was done once and then ended, I suppose it falls into a gery area, although i do not encourage anyone to test it's limits. Please everyone be aware of the nature of the topic you are entering into. <P>I can fully understand devoted lovers of the movie wanting criticism - free space or at least a space free of anti-movie angst to chat about what they loved - it is only natural, and conversly, suporters of the movie should not troll about seeking to disrupt threads devoted to abject,caustic, severe and blatant criticism of the movie either. <P>This thread was designed to facilitate a meeting of the minds and as such is likely to be a hot-bed [ which it has proven to be]. But any attempt to stifle either side of the debate is not allowed.By stifling I trust I have explained the Downs rules sufficiently above.<P><BR>Lush,re: <B>and $'s</B>I previously stated <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I agree with the thought that PJ did way more for commercial acceptance than needs be. He was guaranteed a blockbuster, just by virtue of the budget he had and the material he was working with and a great cast.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>And I stand by it although I will add Alan Lee, and the other artist/advisor whose name is eluding me, internet exposure topping all previously made films to the list. <P>With this crew, and the fact that two knighted actors and Kate Blanchett [among others] if it was being destrotyed so bad that it would bomb would have walked off the sets if it was going to be garbage.<P>Neither of us can prove either way our point defintively, but Cleopatra was not, i think the best rejoinder, because it had not previously been voted Book/Author of the Century and read by Millions of current Movie-goers when they were young.<P>The LotR had a bigger built in audience than anymover ever made [ with the possible exception of H.Potter, I am not really sure]. Again the cast, artistic advisors, massive internet exposure, massive media exsposure and of course a huge advertising Budget, and the fact that they cut costs enormously by filming all 3 in one go, literally guaranteed that the movies would make their money back and then millions.<BR>So I do not see how their was any need to twist the plotline of the movie if the books had attracted such fans, sure show moreof Arwen, that is justifiable, especially given the Tale in the appendix, but to say she nneds to replace Glorfindel and carry a sword [and bring Anduril] for the film to succeed seems highly unlikely. PJ was on the right track with the Osanwe/'watching over Aragorn in thought' and also with more scenes of them in Rivendell [ he missed a great opp. for a flash back at Lorien to btw]. <P>So sure, expand Arwen's role if it will help make the story more accessible on some commercially sub-concious level, but as I show above [ and to a small degree PJ himself showed ] it can be done with out distorting and changing the characters.<P>I do not advocate a mindless adherence to the books for the movie to be 'pure' but changing the characters motivations [Treebeard, Elrond, Aragorn and most radically Faramir] was a peice of editorial hubris by PJ and to the mind of myself and many others here, lowered the film's quality for some [ myself being one] and sadly for other's ruined it.<P>By the way, like Willie, I do not stay up nights worrying about it, but I do like to exorcise my self by depositing my reactions and feelings here, where who knows, maybe the next director/wrriter of the LotR may be lurking ! <p>[ January 31, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Carrûn]

Hm, well, I dislike the expanded role of Arwen in the first of the films. However I am just fine with they way she is portrayed out of the Two Towers. I would have to say the first time I saw Liv as Arwen I was a bit disappointed but she (for lack of a better word) grew on me as I watched second, third, fourth, etc. <P>However, from the rumors I've heard about her role in ROTK I'm probably going to like that the least.

[Grimbold]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Sorry, you lost me here Grimbold. Because she is the daughter of a rock star, that automatically means she can't act? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>There's nothing automatic about it, and I'm not trying to put anyone down, but Tyler just tends to take certain roles. I don't think she was chosen particularly for her acting prowess, although she did a fine job in the movies. I think the casting people wanted some Americans in the movie so that the American viewing public would have a few names to recognize, so they wouldn't be totally thrown for a loop by the cast. Some people prefer familiar actors to quality ones. (Not implying anything!)

[Rindowen]

Oh, my.. there is so much to respond to, I hardly know where to begin.<P>First, though, let me start by apologizing to Lily Ahern for getting away from the subject of Arwen in the movies! I just think I should finish what I started here.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Happy haunting Rindowen. Wow! You have certainly whipped up a hornet's nest (to mix my metaphors), but then discussion of this particular topic always seems to do just that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Saucepan Man, yes, I did stir a hornet's nest! And I think some here would like to have stopped me! However, I am not afraid to create a stir whatsoever. Isn't that why we are here... to toss around opposing views and maybe even LEARN something from others? If we came to these threads and never questioned anyone, what would be the point?<P>Also from Saucepan Man:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> lindil, I don't think that Rindowen was seeking to stifle people's opinions about the films. I interpret this simply as a graphic illustration of Rindowen's opinion that Jackson had a very difficult task and that it would have been nigh on impossible for anyone to make a commercially successful film that would have satisfied every fan of JRRT's works. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Oh, you are so right on there, Man! I never once said, "Shut up, folks!" I was simply questioning why we should be so hard on PJ for creating the work he created. Lindil said that he thought seeing the movie BEFORE reading the books would jade people's view of the books, and I completely understand where he is coming from on that. BUT! Does this mean, then, that no one should EVER make a movie of a book unless they follow every, single detail simply so the audience will never have a skewed vision of the book??<P>Also, when I said that LoTR is fiction and not something to get so incredibly emotional about, I'm afriad I didn't make myself all that clear.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This is where I don't agree with you, Rindowen. Great works of literature (as with any form of art) are just the sort of things that we should get emotional about. I too have an emotional attachment to the books, having first read them some 25 years ago. But I don't find that this precludes my enjoyment of the films. Nor do the films impair the emotion that I feel for the books. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I completely agree with you, Man. What I was trying to say was, actually, that this work of fiction isn't something, in MY humble opinion, that should generate so much anger and ill-feelings... That there are far more important things in this universe to use our energy toward. <BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>That said, I think it is important to note that LoTR is fiction and not something to get so incredibly emotional about! It is a brilliant work, certainly! But is it worth being disrespectful to others?! I choose to think not.[QUOTE]<P>If you want to get angry, get angry.. by all means! I'm not telling ANYONE what to do or feel... But I'm trying to get folks to consider another option. Criticism is WONDERFUL! But it can be done respectfully and helpfully.<P><BR>[QUOTE] lindil is right. Too many times have I been told to stop complaining about something (usually something in the movies), and especially when it's in a thread where half or the whole is based on criticisms and complaints. And then sometimes I got so fed up, I told or asked them to leave the thread. They actually should have left if they were going to complain about us complaining about the movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Willie, if you read through all the thread, you will notice that I never once said, "I think you should stop complaining!" What I was trying to do, obviously unsuccessfuly, was to say that there are GOOD and BAD ways of criticizing.. AND that there is a difference between critiquing certain aspects of the film and making blanket statements about how PJ is a sell-out, etc.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And I just remembered another thing. This thread is a discussion about why you do NOT like Arwen in the movies, so none of us want to hear why you do like her in the movies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I know this point has already been made (Thanks, Diamond18!), so I'll let it go. But I just want to also point out that Willie is trying to speak for everyone here, and THAT is not allowed either! (BTW, Lindil, if you would like to forward me all of the "RULES" for these discussion threads, I'll be happy to look them over and either comply or get out of town! Just know that I never broke the rule that you stated... I never said, "Stop complaining," and left it at that! I said, in a sense, "Why are you complaining? Do you think you could do better?") I think Saucepan Man said what I was getting at in just a few short phrases:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And I have no problem with you disliking the films. I am just interested in finding out why you feel so strongly about it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I also wanted to know why people felt it was necessary to call PJ a sell-out. Lindil, you seem to have taken this as a personal attack:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I am sorry, how was I disrespectful? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I never said, "You, Lindil, were disrespectful!" I said "people" were being disrespectful... and, forgive me, but I don't want to take the time here to scan through all of the threads again and call EVERY ONE of those who were out. But here is one fine example from Willie:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And PJ, I believe, wanted to get his greedy little hands on some of the profits.... ...That's one way I view him as a sell out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>In that same entry, Willie said that he could have predicted exactly what Jackson would do, in terms of selling out. THIS is the type of criticism that I was trying to call out in my original post!<P>Then, in response to my saying that people shouldn't be so hard on PJ, Lindil responds with this little ditty:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As I said before I don't hate the movies, but it is sad that he succombed to the old saying about editors:<P>They are like dogs... because they don't like the smell of anything unless it has their pi$$ on it.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR>I simply cannot see why someone has to use such harsh language toward a person they don't even KNOW!!<P>NOW are we all on the same page?<P>Here is my main issue now... How can you, Lindil, tell me that I have no right to tell people to stop complaining (even when I never said or even implied anything of the sort) and then tell me what phrases I can and cannot use?!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I realize you are new here, so this may perhaps be new , if you have not been lurking for a while. So I do not wish to be a ton of bricks coming down on you. But please do not resort to the 'make your own movie line' anymore. It is a very worn-out and authoritatively proscribed reaction. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Thank you for analyzing me and my reaction.. But challenging someone to make a better movie is something I MAY do here! As Saucepan Man pointed out, I was merely suggesting that PJ did a great job, and saying that he "sold-out" and bastardized the book.. well, is just isn't acceptable to me. Those who choose to put a man down for his interpretation and his art are, perhaps, the ones who should go elsewhere... <P><BR>Willie also said:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Rindowen, maybe the books dont mean as much to you as they do to me, but try to understand where we're coming from. Take the BarrowDowns for example. After a while, this place will almost feel like home to you. I love the atmosphere at this site. I've only been here for about 3 months, yet it feels like I've been here for ages. When this place becomes that close to you, you'll see what I mean. If you got in an argument over this site, and you were defending this site, how would you feel if someone told you not to get so emotional over it? You'd probably feel shocked, angry, insulted, and many more feelings, but most of all, you wouldn't like it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Oh, yes, I DO get emotional about books. But do I "name call" those who do not make the movie about the book EXACTLY as the book was written? NO! I may say that I would have liked to have seen something done differently and point those things out... but I wouldn't put a PERSON down for what they did. Your analogy was fine, although perhaps a bit misguided! Yes, I will defend something I feel is worth defending (i.e. Barrow Downs or a book or a religion), but I will NOT INSULT the person who I am challenging.<P>Criticizing vs. Insulting... It's actually THAT simple! There is a difference and THIS is the only thing that I was trying to point out! It isn't against the rules! But is SHOULD be against the rules to JUDGE a person, whether or NOT they happen to be directly involved in this thread!<P>*******************************<P>And I am still sticking to my original post, in that I appreciate what PJ was trying to do with the Arwen roll.

[Vardamar]

Just to clear things up I'm not telling anyone what to think, Im just stating my opionion. The freedom to think what ever you want is the most important freedom out there.

[Tar-Palantir]

Rindowen, do you really think these people are scared of a hornet's nest??? No one is trying to stifle your opinion. But to say things like "how many of you are making your dreams come true?" What on Middle-Earth does that have to do with it? It's insulting and belittling. How does that comment or saying people are "judging him for trying to make a living" or the comment akin to "make my own movie", how do they defend the films or PJ? They don't. They are just broad-based remarks that don't tackle any of the details. <P>You summed it up yourself in your first post: <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Both TFoTR and TTT were INCREDIBLY wonderful films... if you simply divorce yourselves from the details of the books!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Details! Details! We don't need no stinkin' details! Throw it all out I say! But for goodness sakes keep Arwen cause she's purrrrddy... <p>[ January 31, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[lindil]

Very good Tar-Palntir! [except the arwen part of course ]. <P>Rindowen:<P>re: the editors/pi$$ comment, it is an old saw I learned in jouranlism class, it makes reference to editors [ or director/writers in theis case] having the uneviable tendency to change things from what they really are so that they appeal to the editor's own preferences and bias.<P>If you want to see that as an attack, fine. I see it as valid criticism of someone who took what everyone here would probably agree is the most important book of the 20th century and changed things in order not just in order to make it fit and conform to an ancceptable and profitable movie format [which as I have argued, given who he had and how much money was involved was a {hard - earned} given], but began to make changes becuaes he seemed to think they were 'better versions' of the story.<P>I will admit, I don not ascribe to all of Willie's thoughts that he was selling out. I am saddened that he felt the need to try and imrpove the plot and characters. That was a vast mistake, which I can only see coming from hubris or pride that he really knew better than Tolkien how the characters and storyline all worked together.<P>One final word on the rules.<P>They are very general: do not flame or attack other posters.<P>However in the Movie forum because so many times people have said something on the order of " well let me see you make a better movie" or "well when you make one yourself let me know, then I will listen to what you have to say" These types of negating statements are by nature absurd to a discussion forum.<P> One is in effect telling the critic that they must sped 270 million dollars [ more or less] to have a reply that is worth anything. Now admittedly what you said way back on page 2 -<BR>"You can all sit here and talk about how you would have filmed this differently.. well, then DO it! I challenge you! "<P>was just short of that, but it was said again explicitly a few posts later if I recall correctly, by another poster.<P>Estelyn [in a thread I tried to find but could not] said essentially that telling a fellow board member that they had to make their own movie in order to criticize it was not allowed, as also was the rejoinder of inisisting people stop criticizing the movie.<P>Both have been repeated so many times that the Moderator [ and BW himself] have asked for those specific actions to stop.<P>If you have any doubts, feel free to ask them to address it on this thread.<P>So yes, we all entitled to our opinion here, and I often learn asmuch from opinions I do not share as one's I do, and I am sure that is true for many of you, however, the one opinion not allowed is negating another's right to an speak out in a civilized manner on the appropriate threads.<P>that is the last I will say on any posting manners I am not the Moderator of this Forum, I and other older members and Forum leaders do from time to time speak on other forums, especially poor Estelyn's because I would like her to be able to spend some hof her time here at the downs enjoying it and not running to police every thred in the movies or every newcomer thread that appears in the Books.<P>now all etiquette aside...<P> R. : <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I never once said, "Shut up, folks!" I was simply questioning why we should be so hard on PJ for creating the work he created.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Those who feel PJ erred gtreatly have given you numerous points as to why we are hard on him, most people who are disturbed by the movies in whole or in part have been able and willing to explain why they feel PJ desrves a hard time. I am curous as to why you are still asking...<P>also regarding the bastardizing comment; althogh the word sounds harsh, as my dictionary reference shows, it accurately expressed my opinions. <P>I find this thread has ceased to discuss and now has become self-consuming, so I will give it a rest as I have said everything I have to say, and as far as I can tell others seem to as well.<P>happy readings [ and viewings]<P>lindil out<p>[ January 31, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[HCIsland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I find this thread has ceased to discuss and now has become self-consuming, so I will give it a rest as I have said everything I have to say, and as far as I can tell others seem to as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yup.<P>H.C.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Well, I have to try to clear up some misunderstandings before I stop.<P>Rindowen<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> NOW are we all on the same page? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Sadly, no. And I think it will be a very long time before we are, if we ever are. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Willie, if you read through all the thread, you will notice that I never once said, "I think you should stop complaining!" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I never said you did. I was referring (in general, and I do mean in general) to many different threads and many different people. Sorry if it seemed like I was talking about you, I wasn't. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Willie is trying to speak for everyone here, and THAT is not allowed <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>No, I was not speaking for everyone. Ok, I tooke the liberty of speaking for some, but I assure that i am probably right. I was refering to 'us' in this quote <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And I just remembered another thing. This thread is a discussion about why you do NOT like Arwen in the movies, so none of us want to hear why you do like her in the movies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>as those, like me, who come into this thread to discuss why they did not like Arwen. After all, that is what the thread is about and allows, not why you did like Arwen in the movies. And if one of those who I considered 'us' in the quote above disagrees with what I said for them, then they have every right to point out my mistake and even humiliate me if they choose to. But, that does not give you any right whatsoever to say that. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And PJ, I believe, wanted to get his greedy little hands on some of the profits.... ...That's one way I view him as a sell out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ok, saying, 'greedy little hands' is just a pinch disrespectful. It may be true also. It is not outwardly and fully disrespectful. And saying I view him as a sell out is not disrespectful at all. That is my opinion. And that also could be true. It is not disrespecting PJ. And anyways, it is alright to be disrespectful to PJ here at the Downs, however, we cannot be disrespectful to each other. So, that is not a fine example at all, as you have claimed. And if you think there are so many out here, then choose another. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> In that same entry, Willie said that he could have predicted exactly what Jackson would do, in terms of selling out. THIS is the type of criticism that I was trying to call out in my original post! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I assume by 'entry', you mean post. Well, no I did not. Do not put words in my mouth. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Criticizing vs. Insulting... It's actually THAT simple! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I wouldn't say it's that simple.<P>But anyways, this discussion seems to be going nowhere. This argument has lost it's thrill and now it's boring and tedious to keep posting. I said all I need to say about Arwen (at least for the moment). And I have said enough about rules and that stuff. It's been fun. You can continue it if you want, but I'm leaving this thread for now, bye.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Ummmmm, if everyone's gone, can I turn the light off??

[lindil]

But wait, no, no, NO!!<P>Estelyn, perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea for an addendum to what is contained rule-wise in the sticky at the top of the forum would be a good way to wind this up?<P>It would be great to have it in the sticky itself, but even here would be great [ I won't forget the name of this thread!] if it needs to referenced again, which seems likely as PJ has 2 extended versions and a regular release to go .<P>There seems to be doubt or confusion as to the 'then let me see you make your own Movie' comment and "stop, criticising PJ/ complaining" decisions.<P><BR>much thanks,<P>-L<p>[ February 01, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Arwen Imladris]

Just keep in mind that it could have been worse! I could have been Arwen! *everyone flees in terror*. No seriously, <A HREF="http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/2/1044178989" TARGET=_blank>here</A> is an article about what ended up on the cutting room floor.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> his cousin said Arwen was indeed at the Battle of Hornburg. Arwen was supposed to have run away with Asfaloth from the Elves going to the Havens and joined the Rohirrim riders with Gandalf. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Ummmmm, if everyone's gone, can I turn the light off?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>*Calling back from outside the door* Sounds like a good idea to me.

[Aredhelaran]

I was dissapointed at first when I saw how expanded Arwen't role was, but once I saw her, I forgave most of it. YOu can't make movies that are exactly like teh books.

[Lush]

lindil, my dear, I will try to be brief.<P>Basically, I want you to try and understand the fact that while other Tolkien readers and non-readers may respond to the movies in different ways, that does not necessarily make some "wrong" and some "right." In a debate like this, there are no winners and no losers, because it all comes down to personal issues that influence our reactions to Peter Jackson. The fact that you have read the books over twenty times should not give you some form of advantage in this debate, especially since you have not provided any concrete evidence that you understand Tolkien's vision better that Peter Jackson, his crew, Liv Tyler (well, Liv's understanding of Tolkien can easily be questioned, but she's just an actress anyway, judging from her interviews she does not appear to care a whole lot) and those of us who don't mind the morphing of her role in the least. <P>As far as I can tell, you are lamenting the mere fact that Arwen replaced Glorfindel, drew a sword, etc., etc. You have every right to do that, but I fail to see how your opinions should somehow matter more than those of Rindowen's, just because you've been reading the books since the 70's. If anything, I can understand where you're coming from, especially the emotional aspect of the issue, but I wish you would accept where people such as myself are coming from as well. <P>And, I want you to remember that, while we are all in here fuming, Peter Jackson & Co. are laughing all the way to the bank. It doesn't make them a bunch of bad people. They know how to make a buck, while most of us don't. And there is nothing morally wrong with that, as long as they're not going out of their way to hurt someone...Have the movies actually hurt you personally in any way? Hell, I felt pretty hurt when "Enemy at the Gates" portrayed the Russian offensive as a bunch of vodka guzzling dingbats, but I ended up laughing about it and moving on. Maybe you ought to do the same? I doubt that PJ made the movies just to "pi** off lindil." Or littleman, or Willie, or anyone else for that matter. He did the best he could while still keeping his paycheck (same goes for the people who made "Enemy at the Gates," though their storytelling talents did not match Jackson's in the least). He didn't owe anything to you guys personally, I think you're mature enough to acccept that, and stop troubling yourself so much. <P>Furthermore,<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Neither of us can prove either way our point defintively, but Cleopatra was not, i think the best rejoinder, because it had not previously been voted Book/Author of the Century and read by Millions of current Movie-goers when they were young.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That's perfectly fine. What about "The Bonfire of the Vanities" then? Both versions of "Lolita" (4th on <I>some</I> list of the greatest works of literature of this century, that as far as I recall, didn't even have the LOTR in the top ten, but had <I>Ulysses</I> as number one, and that's saying a lot right there.)? "Anna Karenina" (surely you would agree that Leo Tolstoy is relavtively "decent" competition for Tolkien)? <P>And remember, the above films didn't have to have <I>half</I> the budget that the LOTR needed to look decent. <P>The point I am trying to make is that, once again, there are no guarantees, especially not in the movie business. Had Peter Jackson's films not delivered, and believe me, if they did not appeal to those who never read Tolkien, they wouldn't have, not on the same level that would have justified the project in the first place, New Line would have been in serious financial trouble, and a lot of talented people would have been in trouble as well. <P>Therefore, with all that, and my previous points in mind, I say to hell with going for each other's throats over Arwen's character, and to hell with judging Peter Jackson, a man none of us (as far as I know) have ever met.<P>[ February 03, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]<p>[ February 03, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Diamond18]

Before this thread is closed as "being discussed to death", allow me to humbly offer up this <A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=001816" TARGET=_blank>link</A> to a thread in which I offer a new and (as far as I know) unaddressed dimension to the Arwen/Glorfindel matter. <P>And I quite agree, Lush. Cheers.

[Yavanna Kementari]

IMHO, I think that adding Arwen, showed the audience the romantic side Sir J.R.R. Tolkien wished to portray between Arwen and Aragorn. I think Liv Tyler did an excellent job. I also like Glorfindel in the book.<BR>But because there is SO MUCH to LotR ( books) that P.J. had a challenge bringning romance to the movie. I would rather have Aragorn with Arwen then wwith GLorfindel <BR>LOL Any way, why complain, what has been done is done Enjoy the Movie or the books as you wish -(~<~> Yavanna