The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - Book Clue for PJackson's Favor, or Still Maddening?

Tar-Palantir · 02-09-2003, 07:57 PM

I for one think the commentary we will get with the DVD (assuming it's detailed) should open our eyes to the wheres and whyfores of the changes to TTT. I have wavered back and forth on some of the topics due to many BD members writing convincing arguments. However, I am inevitably winding up more in the direction of dissaproval for most of the major changes. Some of them simply won't be resolved by discussion until RotK is released - Faramir, Osgiliath, Arwen's role, etc...<P>The Arwen subplot was distracting in that I (as a theater goer) didn't know what they were trying to accomplish. If they were setting up her 'escape' from her father's clutches, that should appear in RotK where she actually goes somewhere. Granted they most likely were going to have Arwen make a appearance at Helm's Deep, but if they cut that why leave in the shot of Arwen departing Rivendell? The pretense here sucks - with a capital S. Arwen having to decieve and escape her dissaproving father Elrond? Just so they can put her in a battle (presumably)? This reeks of the same smell as trying to believe that Elrond would send his only daughter against NINE Nazgul to find Frodo in FotR - (insert wretching sound here). <P>Maybe people want to see more Arwen, but that required them to alter her demeanor. Would you not prefer she be wise and patient and have a GOOD relationship with her father, one where they UNDERSTAND and ACCEPT each other, instead of the obvious deception to come? Why do we need her saving Aragorn (which she did twice already)? Why do we need a warrior-queen? WHY? <P>Now I will switch sides for a second and say that if PJ and co. absolutely HAD to increase one of the female roles I'm glad it was Arwen and not Eowyn. If they had endowed Eowyn with a stronger Aragorn-Lust it would have destroyed her character. Which opens another point, they didn't allow her to join the Warg battle, good for the scriptwriters, so why change Arwen and let her wield a sword? I don't get it because I don't know their vision for these characters. Why do some events stay the same and others that need no changing get changed and some get inserted from scratch? It's the not knowing that gets me I suppose...<p>[ February 09, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

02-09-2003, 07:57 PM	#5
Tar-Palantir Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: napa valley, ca Posts: 496	I for one think the commentary we will get with the DVD (assuming it's detailed) should open our eyes to the wheres and whyfores of the changes to TTT. I have wavered back and forth on some of the topics due to many BD members writing convincing arguments. However, I am inevitably winding up more in the direction of dissaproval for most of the major changes. Some of them simply won't be resolved by discussion until RotK is released - Faramir, Osgiliath, Arwen's role, etc...<P>The Arwen subplot was distracting in that I (as a theater goer) didn't know what they were trying to accomplish. If they were setting up her 'escape' from her father's clutches, that should appear in RotK where she actually goes somewhere. Granted they most likely were going to have Arwen make a appearance at Helm's Deep, but if they cut that why leave in the shot of Arwen departing Rivendell? The pretense here sucks - with a capital S. Arwen having to decieve and escape her dissaproving father Elrond? Just so they can put her in a battle (presumably)? This reeks of the same smell as trying to believe that Elrond would send his only daughter against NINE Nazgul to find Frodo in FotR - (insert wretching sound here). <P>Maybe people want to see more Arwen, but that required them to alter her demeanor. Would you not prefer she be wise and patient and have a GOOD relationship with her father, one where they UNDERSTAND and ACCEPT each other, instead of the obvious deception to come? Why do we need her saving Aragorn (which she did twice already)? Why do we need a warrior-queen? WHY? <P>Now I will switch sides for a second and say that if PJ and co. absolutely HAD to increase one of the female roles I'm glad it was Arwen and not Eowyn. If they had endowed Eowyn with a stronger Aragorn-Lust it would have destroyed her character. Which opens another point, they didn't allow her to join the Warg battle, good for the scriptwriters, so why change Arwen and let her wield a sword? I don't get it because I don't know their vision for these characters. Why do some events stay the same and others that need no changing get changed and some get inserted from scratch? It's the not knowing that gets me I suppose...<p>[ February 09, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ] __________________ History shows again and again How nature points up the folly of men Go, go, Godzilla!