Glorfindel is a girl?!
 

I remember watching the FotR for the first time and one of the first things that rattled my cage was the substitute of Arwen for Glorfindel - utter madness. Why Arwen? more to the point, why not Glorfindel.

I'd read all about Glorfindel and his achievements in battle (especially with the Witch King) and the rumour about him being the Glorfindel reincarnate of Glorfindel of Gondolin. Basically, i was really looking forward to PJ's interpretation of this "hero" but it was totally discarded, and i mourned.

What do you chaps think? Share my view? Think it was a smart move?

Well, probably since Glorfindel doesn't do much else in the book, PJ thought he might present Arwen as the warrior princess. Remember she not only steal Glorfindel's part, but also Elrond and Gandalf's by making the Bruinen grow and hit the Nazgul.
Arwen's part definitely became more significant this way, especially also keep in mind in the movies she is the one without M-e would have been taken by Sauron, since without the sword (which in the movie is only made at Arwen's request) Aragorn couldn't summon the Dead, and all that stuff.

Basically, the filmmakers didn't think it was worth it to introduce a minor character who is afterwards never heard from again, when they could instead enhance the character of Arwen and strengthen Aragorn's story arc. I would have loved to see Glorfindel, but I agree with the decision.

I see the chaps in your name were also left out :P

I could be mistaken, but i believe that she was only summoning the power of the Elves to manipulate the river. I seem to remember Gandalf claiming that the foaming white horses were of his design, which i believe ties somewhat with the book. Howeber, i'm still ****ed that they left the Golden one out. Do you guys reckon he was the reincarnate of Glorfindel of Gondolin?

Why bother answer when you can link, I think this does answer your last question rather well.http://www.barrowdowns.com/faq_glorfindel.php. As for your first question, I don't mind the deletion probably because I have a liking for Liv Tyler:p

Although I missed seeing Glorifindel, I felt that it was a smart move on PJ's part. It's death on film to introduce cool characters and then never develop them. Besides, I didn't feel as if that seen changed Arwen's character as much as focused on it more.

It didn't really make a warrior as much as a fast rider. After all, she didn't fight in that seen, she just brought out the sword to lure the Nazgul into the river.

Yes but, Glorfindel had a key role in the council too, and though it wouldn't allow for character development due to the closeness of his appearances, it would certainly be an achievable prospect. Maybe a camio in the last film to :P joking lol.

Your probably right, i just think he was a really interesting character to leave out, and it wouldn't have been a "bad move" to include him - its not quite like the Bombadil sequence, which, fantastic as it is, may appear like somewhere the Hobbits go after too much "leaf".

I don't like the decision because Glorfindel has a key role in the counsel of Elrond and it really erks me to see that PJ just butchered the whole Glorfindel thing.

I agree with the move just because for theatrical purposes it made Arwen's story deeper, but at the same time I do not like the decision because it disappoints the Glorfindel fans out there...there are a ton of minor characters that PJ neglects to put in (Imrahil, Elladan, Elrohir, Beregond), and if I had it my way they would all be included...who cares if people get lost and the characters play small roles. Read the books! It's a shame Hollywood doesn't work that way :(

Well, I was absolutely disgusted with how much screen time Arwen got. Five minutes entire trilogy would have been preferable(though ten would have been better...)

I liked Glorfindel a great deal in the books, and I think sending a girl out against nine black riders is silly.

I don't think I would have minded quite so much if they had sent out someone like Elladen or Elrohir, seeing that they are in the book more that Glorfindel. The pumped up romance between Aragorn and Arwen was so... annoying, silly, stupid, and didn't belong.

I really do not mind the attention the love story of Aragorn & Arwen received. Love plays a pivotal part in all things, and movies are no exception. Even in the books, you can feel the intense love of the two. There is a deeper connection I feel in the books to Aragorn and Arwen than you can read by just going over the words. In the Appendices and The Unfinished Tales their story is allaborated on much further.

Love does indeed carry a pivotal part in everything. The LotR is crammed pack full of love, though not the same as that between Aragorn and Arwen. However, because the movie spent so much time focusing on the love between Aragorn and Arwen, they had little or no time to show the love between other characters, such as Frodo and Sam. Occasionally, yes, you could see the devotion of Sam towards Frodo, or Frodo's thankfulness towards Sam, but often (quite often) all you could see was conflict.

And what about Eowyn and Faramir? Tolkien had more of their love story in the actual novel than that of Aragorn and Arwen? Why didn't they get more screen time?

Anyway, off topic...

I would say that Glorfindel should have been in the movie. Arwen simply didn't belong out there. Glorfindel was a fantastic character, brief or no, and it certainly wouldn't have made the movie any worse if they had had him in it.

The Council of Elrond needed work, too. Maybe Glorfindel would have been able to save that as well as Frodo....

Besides, they had to have had a better way of introducing Arwen as Aragorn's beloved other than - "What's this? A ranger caught off his guard?"

I agree with both these points here. The relationship of Eowyn and Faramir is a great one, especially because, like you said, Tolkien elaborated more on it in the narrative of the novel. It's also just a great love story, to see how Faramir carries himself towards Eowyn, and vice versa. Great, great stuff that didn't make it in PJ's world, amongst other things he left out.

The Council definitely needed work. Wasn't the Council at a rectangular table? And the whole "You have my sword...etc.,etc." from each character just does not fit. It is the wisdom and choice of Elrond that joined the Nine Walkers, not some spur of the moment desire of each member to vow his life for Frodo. Not to mention, don't you think that when each character got up to pledge alliegence to the Quest that almost every single other body there would have as well? No doubt that their courage would have been doubted if not. Instead in the films the rest just sit back and relax like it's no big deal.

alatar shudders at what he is about to do...defend the work of Peter Jackson...

There is only so much time, and even though PJ's films were overly long by today's standards (the more times you show a movie per day, the more money you make, and there's still only 24 hours/day), he still had to leave some scenes and ideas on the floor. And, especially with the experiment that was FotR, PJ had to make sure that the first film was a financial success, as if it weren't, Helm's Deep may not have been as fun to watch (no money = no CG, no refilmed scenes, etc). And though I've been on this roundabout before, PJ thought that (1) having Arwen in the film earlier and more rather that later and little would make the film more successful, (2) adding extra powerful characters not only muddied the waters in the audience's minds but wasn't good storytelling and (3) he had enough plot holes to sham over, and having a powerful character not show up later in the movie would just have too many people stuck wondering.

Plus, with wonderful Tolkienesque dialog like "Give up the halfling, She-Elf!" you just know that he made the right choice.

Round table...where have I read that before? Note that nothing was in the scene by chance.

Although it was nothing like the book where a case was made for taking the Ring for a lava swim, the scene where the Nine Walkers assemble themselves, to me, was emotionally powerful. I see persons 'standing up' against the Darkness, and to me the scene worked well enough. Especially Aragorn and Boromir - Aragorn later will bow before Frodo and refuse the Ring right before the Uruks come, and Boromir does sell himself for the Ringbearer (or nearest kin).

Anyway, as much as I have issues with the trilogy, Glorfindel is way down the list on things I would have changed.


P.S. :eek: Galadriel, Eowyn and my daughter Boog ("Stronger than boys!") would beg to differ. ;)

Don't be ridiculous. Galadriel wasn't a warrior. Eowyn was incorrect in her reasoning and thinking. Finduilas was perfectly right.

Besides, even if Galadriel did fight - Arwen did not. Not in the books anyway.

-- Folwren

i'd be tempted to swap "right" with "wrong" on your final sentence.

It may have been more cost efficient to scrap Glorfindel but thats not really important to us, the viewers, is it? As a result, i just find myself bewildered and devastated one of the best characters is not included. Surely other dodgy scenes could be modified if cost and time were the big n issues...

adding extra powerful characters not only muddied the waters in the audience's minds but wasn't good storytelling and (3) he had enough plot holes to sham over, and having a powerful character not show up later in the movie would just have too many people stuck wondering.

I think this evalution is certainly how the book was, so why not the film? I wondered if the outcome would have been different if Glorfindel ventured with the fellowship. Merry and Pippin substituted the possibility of Glorfindel in the expedition. '"Stuck" wondering' i think is abit exaggorated, it would probably serve as a mere passing thought during the film.

I am still bitter about the utter carnage of PJ on Glorfindel!

I cannot comprehend why...;)

It's not cost, as in actor, costume etc, but the cost to the story which then translates to the success of the film. Image if we had the four hobbits stop off for an hour for a visit with Tom. Less time for Moria, which may have appealed to more persons than the few (here) that even know who Tom is.

My sister, a fan of the movie but having never read the books, did not miss Tom or Glorfindel. Her criticism in TTT was, "Who ARE all of these people?" She's no dunce, but found even some of PJ's LotR confusing. She did buy tickets - remember, never read the books and thinks that they're geeky - yet PJ got her in the theatre.

Consider yourself blessed (maybe he was at Helm's Deep). My fav, Gandalf, was in the films, and was so trashed in RotK:EE that I quit watching the movies for months. You may miss the old elf, but at least your memory/fondness remains untainted, unlike mine with that of a prone scared wizard.

Poor alatar. I am sorry about Gandalf. His character was butchered. But at least it wasn't Frodo who was your favorite character, as he is just about mine. Frodo's character was not only butchered but also blown into smithering pieces and then tried to be put back together...

Don't cry for me. The SbS provided a cathartic; I'm all better now and have moved on to complaining about other things not in the movies.

Like Fredegar ‘Fatty’ Bolger...;)

Totally agree, Frodo positively hummed of pathetic and feminine attributes. He was never a favourite in the book for me though.

I think thats a very well educated answer :P Nonetheless, it would have been nice to see him, even briefly. Going by your common sense, the scenes with Bombadil would have been far too long for the film i think, another shame but one more undestandable.

The loss of Glorfindel is a forgivable twist, as far as I am concerned, but that doesn't mean I think it was ok. But if I was going to kill PJ it wouldn't be for that.:rolleyes: Don't worry, I'm really not in the least violent.

As you can probably see, I don't really like Arwen. In fact, while watching TTT with family we always fast foward almost every scene with her in it. So you could say, I am uncommonly biased, not only liking Glorfindel, but disliking the movie Arwen.

I couldn´t agree more. Almost as ridiculous as sending two feeble little hobbits carrying the Ring all alone against the might of Sauron.

Feeble? No one would call them feeble. Hobbits are amazing creatures. You should know that.

Look, Eowyn was an exception. Women in Tolkien's world didn't go out on a normal bases riding horses in the wild and challenging evil, powerful beings like the Nazgul! It almost looks like that in the movie! Whenever there's a chance - who's there saving someone from a Nazgul? A woman! Yay for females!!

Whoopdidoo.

-- Folwren

I want to start with saying, I'm not trying to bash you or anything, I am just answering your remark.

The two feeble little hobbits didn't go and challenge Sauron face to face.

Everything considered, their endurence, their natural goodness and therefore resistence to the Ring, and other things, the hobbits were some of the best people Elrond and Counsil could have sent. Not to meantion that Frodo was the present owner of the Ring. Arwen, on the other hand, was one person to chose out of the host of Elves that Elrond had. What father would have sent his daughter out to face nine powerful evil beings, when he himself was more powerful than she? Was he afraid of riding horses?

I think Lalaith was being sarcastic...however,

Haha, good point.

Always be careful what you wish for.

I read that, when introducing someone new to LotR that one may consider telling the person to start reading at Bree, as the chapter prior tend to bog some readers down like so many marshes. Once the person is hooked, he/she may then reread the entire FotR book, now wondering what all of that minutia was about.

Though I agree that sometimes the scenes with her and her live-in boyfriend tend to slow down the action, I don't think that PJ did too bad with Arwen (with the exception of the Fords scene :mad:). Remember, there were many 'dates' in the theatre, and some people enjoyed the love story amongst all of the action. I did send my wife the eCard with the Arwen/Aragorn bridge scene.

And speaking of Glorfindel, PJ barely shows Eomer and Faramir, and I think that these characters were more important to the story than the Big G.

Did Elrond send her, or did she sneak out? Methinks that Elrond probably tipped off the Nine as to the whereabouts of Aragorn, as the Half-Elven isn't exactly keen on having a man as a son-in-law.

You forget Sam tackling Frodo when Frodo was proposing to the Winged Nazgul in that City of Love Osgiliath ("with this Ring I demonstrate my undying love..."), and there's always Brego (male?), who seemingly kisses just like Arwen.

Surely you can not be serious. Anybody who skips the first chapters of the book is hopeless anyway, and probably shouldn't even be reading the book in the first place. If you're going to read LotR, you should read it front to back, none of this skipping business. Not to mention, the reader would be completely lost starting from "At the Sign of the Prancing Pony".

Oh, I don't know. Let's see...the only real main character that would be missed is Gandalf, and he comes back later in the tale and tells what happened to him. The importance of the Ring is made clear in The Council of Elrond.

Mind you, I don't think that it's a good idea to skip around like that, but I have heard of many people who picked up the FotR and said they couldn't get through it. It never occurred to me to ask at which point they quit trying.

Although made crystal clear at the Council, I disagree.

Blasphemy!

Well...yes...I thought so to, but I refrain from saying anything.

I am, and don't call me 'surely'... ;)

If you truly want people to share the joy that is reading LotR, wouldn't you want them to get into it anyway that they could, even if it meant skipping a few slower chapters or even seeing the Peter Jackson films first? Once hooked, they will go back (or not).

Not sure that that'd work for everyone. Check out the usual book selling sites and read the reviews of those that give FotR a poor rating (the horrors! :eek:). Some see it as "dull" and quit reading it after "60" or so pages.

Another soul lost.

Hm. Tale of Two Cities is like that. My dad can't get through the first five chapters and my younger sister said that when she finally read it, it was when she skipped those first several chapters (she'd already read them and put down the book several times). I myself did that with Oliver Twist - reading the first several chapters, putting the book down for half a year, picking it up again, reading the first chapters, and putting it down again. Finally, when I picked it up again, I skipped those chapters and read it to its finish.

Anyhow, this is sadly off topic. Do you know - Glorfindel isn't even in the first several chapters of the FotR?

In that vein, read the story regarding the The Princess Bride where William Goldman tells how his father always skipped the slow parts and made the book interesting. When, nostalgically, Goldman asked his son to read this wonderful story, he couldn't understand why his son was close to tears trying to finish the first chapters. It wasn't until he himself picked up and actually read the story that Morgenstern penned that he realized what a slog it was and how wonderful his own father was in editing it (in his head).

And just what did he accomplish after the Ford beside harrumphing at the Council? Speaking of sending girls to fight wraiths, why did Elrond keep this elvish weapon home?

Who said anything about wanting to share the joy? :)

That's horrible. Another soul lost indeed!