Do you like Arwen's role in The Lord of the Rings?

[The Only Real Estel]

No. I think they should've kept her true to the book, I especially would've liked to see the elven-lord Glorifindel rescue Frodo on the trip to Rivendell over Arwen! I just think they had to much of a strech to give Arwen so much of a role. In two weeks I'm going to tally up the responses and post a new topic with the results.

[Meela]

I would have liked to have seen Glorfindel, and using Arwen so much was an outrageous liberty, but her role and performance was actually very good. I enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed the rest of the films.

[Elrond Jr]

Glorfindel would have been very cool, except he would be another character to add into the already modified plotline.

[Frodo 007]

I think Liv Tyler did a really good job of playing Arwen and i think Arwen's wicked so i think its good that they put her in the film more!

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Nope. Not one single bit, and now I seem to hate Liv Tyler, even though it is not her fault at all, and when I say that, I think, "oh, it's Pj's fault," and I would like to say it isn't, but I do blame him, and Fran Walsh. And there was someone else I think that was partly responsible for this, but that person is lucky no one remembers who he/she is. Glorfindel would have been much much better. And after thinking over this whole Arwen thing and the modified plot, I beginning to think that this was done to be politically correct to have a female with a big role. I'm not saying this is true (it's just something that popped into my mind), but I hate political correctness and think that it is bull-you-know-what sometimes (and by sometimes I mean this time). And we have Eowyn anyways. i think that the plot should have been left alone. If they were stretched for time, they should have left out the part (Jolly old Tom Bombadil) or modified it sensibly. Sorry for rambling

[Beruthiel]

I really don't like Arwen's role in the movie. The movies make her seem to be such an important character when in the books she practically never mentioned! <BR>Like, once my friend had started reading LOTR and she was getting so annoyed that Arwen wasn't in the books and I was like hey remember that these movies were based on the book in the first place! Arwen wasn't meant to be there, she shouldn't have been changed so drastically.

[davem]

It makes me uncomforatble. LotR is so complex, with plots & characters & timelines interweaving, that when you make any changes, let alone major ones like replacing one character with another you risk the whole thing collapsing like a house of cards.

[Tar-Palantir]

Glorfindel, Schmorfindel... Give me more Arwen.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> LotR is so complex, with plots & characters & timelines interweaving, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That is very, very true. But be honest, those twists and turns are not in the film, and never could be given the financiers and audience for these films. Even the most earnest effort would leave you with a dragging overly complex and ultimately unsatisfying film experience for the masses. Oh, it's not for the masses you say? Is it for the 'purists'? The 'purists' will never be satisfied. No judgement here, just the facts.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> let alone major ones like replacing one character with another you risk the whole thing collapsing like a house of cards <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Replacing Glorfindel = major change? A slightly dramatic proclamation. We all know Arwen was used to up the sex appeal, but has she really played such havoc with the films? Not so far, not at all.<P>Glorfindel is a one-shot deal, and nothing to get in a tizzy over, it's not like she joined the fellowship all the way to Lothlorien and killed a Balrog. The dream sequences in TTT? The long one focused on the Appendices, which was great, I loved it. And the other 2(?) were so short that the argument of "But we could have seen more of Treebeard or Frodo" is a big pile of hooey. Extra 'time' would be better found nixing the Warg attack sequence than Arwen.<P>**A*U*A**

[davem]

Well, it becomes a problem to the extent of which character replaces which. Arwen's role, in fact her essential nature has been changed. How come Arwen can defy The Ringwraiths? where did she get that kind of power?. We know that Glorfindel could defy them, because of his history. In fact, its probably ONLY the fact that he has returned from the undying lands that gives him the power. Personally, as I've stated on numerous other threads, I think LotR is slowly unravelling on screen, mainly because the film makers, while they may love Tolkien's work, clearly have way too little insight into what Tolkien was actually doing.

[The Only Real Estel]

I'm sorry if I mae it sound like I was only not happy that they took Glorifindil out. No way! I just don't like the largly extended role that Arwen has..amazingly enough, in a survey online (resently), more females would've prefered that Arwen NOT have been in the movie...so much for upping the sex appeal ! I just wish they would've given her a smaller role, or non at all...although I agree with you that replacing Glorifindel wasn't an earth-shattering decision. Most of the peole that watch the movie don't understand the power that only a select few have against the Black Riders anyway, they probably figure that either anyone can stand up to them...or no one can! <p>[ April 22, 2003: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

[Tar-Palantir]

Most people don't care where Arwen 'got the power'. She is a high and mighty elf and the daughter of Elrond, that is enough for them. <P>I agree about the unraveling, hopefully they can hold it together for one more movie. But as far as 'too little insight into what Tolkein was doing' goes, I think they did have enough long time fans on set to clue them in on certain major points and minor ones. The flaws occur when they compromise for percieved audience and studio demands. i.e. more sex (Arwen) more humor (Gimli) more action (Aragorn facing 50 uruk-hai at Amon Hen by himself, extended Helm's Deep sequences, wargs, etc..) dramatic sets (the stairs of Moria). Mistakes were made here that I believe were deemed necessary to hold the audience for 3 hours.<P>But director/writer interpretation is a different animal and I think not all bad. Obviously mistakes were made here too. Although it may seem to some that the writers/director did not have a clue about what Tolkien "was actually doing" I think it's far closer to the mark in saying that mistakes happen. They cannot all be prevented, nobody is perfect, and especially so with adapted screenplays. The funny thing is, although everybody knows what restrictions there were and how complex Tolkien's work is, they still come down hard on the production team. Misdirected in my opinion, it was never meant to be anything but entertainment, certainly not the definitive version of LotR. You know it, I know it, BarrowDowns knows it, the writers know it. The only people who don't know it are the people it was written for - the moviegoing masses and the entertainment media, so I guess they hit their target, no? They certainly weren't clueless to the score as intimated.<P>I think the cuts have been tolerable so far, ttt was harder but I still got it down and didn't mind seeing Arwen a bit. New insertions like the cliff falling and elves at HD are more out of place than expanding and expounding Arwen's role.<P>crossing fingers for RotK,<BR>Tar<p>[ April 23, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[Cibbwin]

I agree with Tar-Palantir. Glorfindel was not a big character. He saved Frodo from the Ringwraiths, that's all. Personally I love what they did with Arwen. Made her seem as more than just Aragorn's consort.<P>And as for not having the power... who says she wouldn't? Daughter of Elrond and Celebrian, daughter of Galadriel? I'd think she wouldn't exactly be weak, let me put it that way.

[davem]

Well, if the movies bring new people to Tolkien, great, but that's all the enthusiasm I can summon for them. I actually liked Fellowship - it wasn't perfect, but I thought it was well done, but Towers has actually killed my positive feelings for Fellowship. I haven't felt like watching it since seeing Towers. Trouble is, it could have been a great film. Actually, I even find it difficult now to summon any energy to even discuss the movies anymore, its just that as I posted yesterday on this topic I didn't want to just 'cut & run'.

[Daewen]

The role itself was well acted and the script for the character was well written, although the Arwen portrayed in the movie was not at all like the Arwen Tolkien wrote about. In fact, I think that she was more like the book version of Eowyn. Although the role was well done, I wish that they would have stayed closer to Tolkien's orignial character rather than, more or less, creating a completly new one. I can understand that the had to play her role up a bit, since the veiwers who may not have read the books would be extremly confused as to who Arwen was and where she came in when she and Aragorn married in ROTK. However, I think that simply using the love scene where the two kissed on the bridge in FOTR and maybe have Aragorn daydreaming about her in TTT would have sufficed. She didn't have to save Frodo from the Nazgul or bring Aragorn "back to life" when he fell off of the cliff...which didn't happen in the book. The roles of Eowyn and Galadriel were closer to the book versions than Arwen's was, although Celeborn's role was greatly reduced to shine more light on Galadriel's part.

[The Only Real Estel]

I'd say Arwen was not weak. But only few had the power to withstand the Black Riders (or cause the Fords of Burien [or whtever it's called] to flood). Glorifindel, Gandalf, & Elrond could stand against the Nine. They could also cause the river to flood, and few others could. I agree that the kissing scene in the FotR and the daydreaming in TTT would've been enough to 'aquant' the watchers with who Arwen was. The cliff-falling and the elves at HD were great libirties indeed, but the warg riders and the extended fighting at Helm's Deep was neither out of place nor lame. I reiterate that I did not mean Glorifinel was a 'major character', or a 'big cut', I just said I'd rather see Glorifindel than Arwen (perhaps I'm to loyal to the books sometimes...). I also agree that they shouldn't have turned Gimli into a clown. I think they stuck <I>TO MUCH</I> humuor into TTT, causing it to lose it's sense of 'impending doom'. That was one thing I liked so much about FotR, you really felt like an intense evil was all around and about you, you felt like <I>YOUR</I> world was hanging from a string as well. FotR just gets you into such a mood that I never pause the movie, for fear of disrupting it. That's one thing I think TTT lacked a great deal, it's also why I lean towards FotR as my favorite of the two (among other reasons, of course). <p>[ April 23, 2003: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

[Luinalatawen]

At first, I kind of liked Arwen's role and increased appearances in Fellowship. But after reading the books a couple more times since my initial viewing, my opinion changed. I agree that the changes did not affect the film, but it's better, of course, as Tolkien intended it to be. I like Arwen in FotR much better than in TTT. That whole dream thing was so very un-Tolkienesque. So I guess you could say that I have very mixed feelings about it. <P>If I had to make the decision about the Flight to the Ford scene, I think I probably would have left Glorfindel out. I like the increased time given to Arwen for the sake of making the movie, if you get my drift, but I don't like the change in her role and character.

[Anardil]

I agree that Arwen's role in the FotR movie was somewhat out of character, especially that first scene when she playfully puts the tip of her sword against Aragorn's throat. I would have preferred it if the chase to the Ford had involved only Frodo and the Nazgul (as it was in the book). All in all, I thought her warrior princess role was a little out of place.<P>On the other hand, in the Rivendell scenes, and especially in TTT, she was much closer to the book Arwen. In particular, the part where Aragorn's death is foreshadowed was very well done. It helped explain her situation and the part that she played in the story.<P>Yes, I suppose they could have left her out altogether, but I think she was an essential part of the background plot to the story, even in the Book. Would Aragorn have fought so hard to become King of Gondor otherwise?

[Arafangwen]

I think that they shouldn't have substituted her for Glorfindel but there's nothing you can do about it but enjoy the movie and hope that they don't totaly destroy the next one. I do agree with you guys about the whole power issue though, they definetly screwed up in telling everyone who hasn't read the books that anyone could withstand the "Black Riders" but once again, there's nothing you can really do about it.

[The Saucepan Man]

I must admit that when the advance publicity for FotR first came out and Arwen action figures started appearing in the shops, I (having at that time not read LotR for many years) was thinking to myself "Who's Arwen?". I hadn't really noticed her in the book, having skimmed through the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen. Things like that and the introduction of Lurtz (who I had <B>definately</B> never heard of before) prepared me for the fact that there were going to be changes from the book.<P>Having said that, I have no problem with the substitution of Arwen for Glorfindel in FotR (if I'm honest, I wouldn't at that time really have recalled Glorfindel either ). It works for me, and I think that her expanded role in the series as a whole works too. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Glorfindel would have been very cool, except he would be another character to add into the already modified plotline. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree with Elrond Jr's point completely. It would have been confusing to (non-Tolkeinite) audiences to have Glorfindel appear just for this sequence. In fact, sticking totally to the book, he would not even have ridden with Frodo to the Ford, but merely turned up and provided the use of his horse, giving him an even smaller (and therefore less justifiable in film terms) role. And there was really no opportunity to develop his character elsewhere in FotR or in TTT. He could, I suppose, have taken the place of Elladan and Elrohir in RotK, but audiences would have forgotten who he was by then.<P>In the Bakshi film, Legolas took Glorfindel's part. That might have worked. However, given that Jackson and co wanted to bring out the love story between Aragorn and Arwen, culminating in their marriage, having Arwen make her appearance here makes sense. Her expanded role also allows for exploration of Aragorn's feelings over his destiny and contributes to the theme of Elves passing to the West, leaving ME in the hands of Men. On this basis, her scenes in TTT make sense too (although I feel that they could have dropped the lemming Warg dragging Aragorn over the cliff and subsequent horse nuzzling bit and worked in her scene there in another way).<P>And, rightly or wrongly (in my view rightly), I think that the filmmakers felt that there were simply not enough strong female characters in the book for modern film audiences. This is not political correctness or tokenism, but simply expanding the role of an existing character in the book to provide another central female character in the film.<P>I don't think that she is really portrayed as the Warrior Princess that she seems to get labelled as. I know that this was the filmmakers' original plan, but I'm glad that they ditched it. Having her at Helm's Deep would have been a big mistake and, while I am sure that she will turn up (with Anduril and Aragorn's banner) in RotK, I sincerely hope that they do not have her fighting at Pelennor Fields. That would detract far too much from Eowyn's central role in that battle.<P>Also, why does her role in FotR suggest that she is able to stand up to the Ringwraiths? All it suggests to me is that she was able to outride them to the Ford. OK, she defies them to come and get Frodo when she is safely across the river knowing (as Glorfindel did in the book) that the flood will come down. But she does not bring the flood down on them any more than Glorfindel did in the book. The flood is commanded by Elrond with Gandalf adding a few touches of his own, just as it was in the book. (The white horses in the flood falling down upon the Ringwraiths was, for me, one of the great breathtaking moments of the film.)<P>I have said a lot on my view of the films on various threads, and some of that is reflected here. I don't think that they are perfect. There are a number of changes and character variations (particularly in TTT) that I don't think work. But overall, given the need for the films to have mass audience appeal (rather than just cater for us fans) and the need to recoup the massive budget required to bring ME to life, I think that both of the films that have so far been released number, as films, among the greats. Tar Palantir, I think, put it very well when he said:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But be honest, those twists and turns are not in the film, and never could be given the financiers and audience for these films. Even the most earnest effort would leave you with a dragging overly complex and ultimately unsatisfying film experience for the masses. Oh, it's not for the masses you say? Is it for the 'purists'? The 'purists' will never be satisfied. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That sums up my feelings very well.<P>Davem said:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think LotR is slowly unravelling on screen, mainly because the film makers, while they may love Tolkien's work, clearly have way too little insight into what Tolkien was actually doing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I don't get the sense that the story is unravelling at all. Yes, many of the intricacies of the books are skipped over or omitted. And not everything is going to neatly tie up in the same marvellous way that it does in the books. But, does that really matter when we are talking about film adaptations of the books which have been made to cater for the modern film-going public? For me, they hang together very well as films, given the complexity of the source material, certainly moreso than many films that I have seen that are labelled as classics.<P>Well, having gone completely off topic for the last few paragraphs, I will finish up with my simple answer to the question posed by the thread: Yes.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

The Saucepan Man:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It would have been confusing to (non-Tolkeinite) audiences to have Glorfindel appear just for this sequence. In fact, sticking totally to the book, he would not even have ridden with Frodo to the Ford, but merely turned up and provided the use of his horse, giving him an even smaller (and therefore less justifiable in film terms) role. And there was really no opportunity to develop his character elsewhere in FotR or in TTT. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Glorfindel could have been at the Council of Elrond, as he was in the book (did they have him there in the movie? or did Arwen take his place there to? ). But all they had to say was something like, "And here is Glorfindel, the great elf whom you already met. it was his horse that bore you here to safety, Frodo." And yes, Legolas took his place in Bakshi's film, but at least we were going to see a lot more of him later on. Yes, you're right, it would have worked.<P>But mainly what I did not like about her there was that it took away from w=my view of Middle-earth. Luinalatawen put it well: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> very un-Tolkienesque. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It just wasn't something that Tolkien would have written. If he was going to make Arwen's role bigger, I don't think that's anywhere near how Tolkien would have done it. It is so un-Tolkienesque, but it doesn't stop at the dream, I think that it applies to the part where Arwen first appears, and then the horse riding scene, and also when they got past the ford.<P>I think that if they wanted to have a strong female character, they should focus a lot on Eowyn. They can do that in TTT and especially in RotK. But in FotR, they could have given a brief history of Glaladriel. I think that would have sufficed. But what's done is done, adn sadly we cannot do anything about it. I just hope that in RotK, they don't screw up.

[The Saucepan Man]

Hi MLD-G-K-Willie. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Glorfindel could have been at the Council of Elrond, as he was in the book <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>But there was no room for any character development here, particularly as they had Elrond, not to mention Boromir, Gimli and Legolas, to introduce. And then that would have been it for Glorfindel, since it would not have been feasible to re-introduce him in RotK if he had not been in TTT. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> very un-Tolkienesque. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Is it? Aragorn and Arwen's story is there in the book. And JRRT wrote a strong female character in Eowyn. I do not see Arwen's expanded role as being particularly at odds with his ideas. For me, un-Tolkienesque is Legolas shield-surfing, which I do not like, but can tolerate for the sake of what else there is in the films. In any event, while I do not think JRRT would have been overly-impressed by the films, I think it was HC who argued that he was unlikely to have liked any film version of LotR, and I think that's absolutely right.

[Sapphire_Flame]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>very un-Tolkienesque<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Exactly. I am a bit more forgiving of Arwen's expanded role in Fellowship, just because it didn't seems to get in the way of the story. In Towers, they basically had to force her into the movie. She blended better in Fellowship, not perfectly, but better than she did in Towers. I am very glad that PJ dropped the idea of Arwen, Warrior Princess, though. I'm not sure I like what happened to Arwen's character in Towers. She seemed too weepy and Mary-Sue-like for my tastes. At least she had some personality in Fellowship, you know? <P>I've talked to a lot of people about this topic before and have received quite a few interesting opinions about it. One I thoroughly agree with is that PJ felt he <I>had</I> to have Arwen in Towers to provide opposition for Eowyn. Eowyn is such a strong character, and you can see her eyes just light up whenever she looks at Aragorn. She shows real emotion, unlike Arwen, who seems to be concentrating on looking etherial and other-worldly. Personally, I think this was a miscalculation on PJ's part; having Arwen in the Movie that much has seemed to push Eowyn sympathies rather than Arwen sympathies, at least with the people I've talked to. I don't condemn Arwen's intrusion in Towers, but I wish there hadn't been so much of it. I think it's really overdone, considering she isn't mentioned in Towers (the book) at all! One little scene (less suggestive than the dream PJ did) would have sufficed.

[Elrowen Greenleaf]

I agree that they changed some stuff that they shouldn't have... Like Glorfindel not showing up, but I still enjoyed it and I loved the chase scene.<P>As far as the dream scenes go.... They seemed to be taken right out of the Appendixes for the most part.

[The Only Real Estel]

The dreams were over-done, or at least I think they were. Saucepan Man: Arwen said some 'elvish words' that appeared to cause the flood ( for those who haven't read the books), that's why it seemed that she summoned the flood. They never made mention of Elrond or Gandalf having created or touched up the flood. I also don't think the whole 'willing Frodo back to life' thing right after the flood was very cool either.

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Saucepan Man: Arwen said some 'elvish words' that appeared to cause the flood <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Can't say that I noticed that, but it doesn't really bother me if she did. After all, she's her daddy's girl. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I also don't think the whole 'willing Frodo back to life' thing right after the flood was very cool either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Again, it doesn't really rock my boat.

[Katherine712]

I enjoyed to references to the story in the appendix in the second movie, but thought she should have been introduced in a different way in fellowship. I felt that all the Arwen drama with Frodo and the ring wraiths was slightly overdone.

[Magician of Nathar]

I really loved and enjoyed Arwen's role, so did my friends. We all read the books before seeing the movies, but we still loved the changes. Movie is a different media than book. There is no room for that slow unravelling of splendour that was so keen in Tolkien's works. It will bore the audiences to death. Arwen's role is simply for show. Her entrance, her ride and the bring-down-the-nazguls thing is to excite the audiences. It's a little spice PJ used, just like all the other changes he made. I find most people here at downs are so busy defending Tolkien's work that they failed to enjoy the freshness and vigour of the PJ's movies. It is an adaption anyway. Would you rather have the whole book on screen, with every dialogue precisely intact?

[The Only Real Estel]

Saucepan Man: Arwen was muttering 'elvish words' the whole time the water was rising. Also, Arwen said something ( to Elrond perhaps?), while she was giving Frodo her little hug, something about letting him be spared and saving him. Those things are what I was talking about.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Hey The Saucepan Man! <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But there was no room for any character development <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I know there wasn't, but you don't need it. All they had to do was say, "And here is Glorfindel, the great elf whom you already met. it was his horse that bore you here to safety, Frodo." Like I said earlier, and then <I>very</I> briefly explain that he will not be going (so the readers will get the picture that they won't see any more of Glorfindel).<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Is it? Aragorn and Arwen's story is there in the book. And JRRT wrote a strong female character in Eowyn. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes, but a strong female warrior is Eowyn, not Arwen. When I read LotR, I could not imagine Arwen drawing a sword upon Aragorn's throat or defying ringwraiths. He wouldn't have made Arwen look like that. I just don't think he would.<P>Oh, and yes, Legolas's shield surfing is a clear definition of something un-Tolkienesque. <P>Magician of Nathar:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Would you rather have the whole book on screen, with every dialogue precisely intact? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>To answer your rhetorical question, yes.

[The Only Real Estel]

I wouldn't want the whole book on screen. But I'd LOVE to see a movie with more of the important parts and less of the libirties.

[The Saucepan Man]

Hey MLD! <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> ... and then very briefly explain that he will not be going (so the readers will get the picture that they won't see any more of Glorfindel). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>But the Flight to the Ford and Arwen's defiance of the Nazgul from the safety of the far bank is one of <B>the </B> key moments of the film. It would seem very strange (in film terms) to involve a character who we are then told we are not going to see again.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Yes, but a strong female warrior is Eowyn, not Arwen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>But what's the problem with having two strong female characters in a film? And Arwen is not really (thanks to a re-thinking on the film-makers' part) portrayed as a warrior. I was simply using Eowyn as an example of a strong female character created by JRRT, to illustrate why I don't think film Arwen is particularly "un-Tolkienesque".<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> When I read LotR, I could not imagine Arwen drawing a sword upon Aragorn's throat or defying ringwraiths. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>When I first read LotR, I don't think that I really noticed Arwen at all.

[Durelin]

Well, I believe the role she has played so far is pretty good. They had to put her in there to make sure it would appeal to women. I have no problem with it being <I>all</I> men, even without Eowyn, but others don't. But, I think that Eowyn will be enough for the rest of the story and they need not mix Arwen in it again. I do wish poor Glorfindel could've been in there. Sold out twice! Arwen rescues Frodo and Gandalf kills the Balrog by himself. But, there is no sense in putting Glorfindel in to fight the Balrog, just so we can see him get killed. So, I say it's good. It could be better, but...you can't please everyone. And certainly not to the fullest!<P>I hope they leave Arwen out of battling. Please! Oh please! But... <P>You know, Glorfindel doesn't even get much in the books. His horse saves Frodo and then he gets killed by the Balrog of Morgoth.<P>I liked Arwen just fine in the books, sitting around and looking pretty. That was nice. She got it better than Glorfindel atleast...<p>[ April 26, 2003: Message edited by: Durelin ]

[The Only Real Estel]

I don't mind Arwen's role as much in Fotr then I do in TTT, as I've said before, I thought the day-dreaming seen was no good. But we're getting a little off subject. Can we get back to posting basically yes or no, witha little bit of explaining please? Thanks everybody.

[Sapphire_Flame]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I liked Arwen just fine in the books, sitting around and looking pretty. That was nice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well said, Durelin. I thoroughly agree with you.

[Mitheithel]

I hated that Glorfindel was replaced with Arwen, but I think that Liv Tyler did her job well. I almost forgot the Arwen in the books.

[Rindoien, elf of Lothlorien]

It would have been excellent to see Glorfindel rescue Frodo, but they had to give the females bigger roles. I was surprised, dare I say amused, to see Arwen Evenstar put on a courageous role there. I think they should have kept it more to the books though.

[Morwen Tindomerel]

Excuse me, but exactly where in the book does Glorfindel save Frodo? As I remember that scene he puts Frodo on his horse and send him galloping off alone to the fords of Bruinen, where Frodo defies the Nazgul, (as Arwen does in the movie) and is saved by the flooding of the Bruinen, sent by Elrond and Gandalf, (also as in the movie).<P> All I know is I *like* Movie Arwen and I've detested Book Arwen for years - what a wuss! Not least because she appears out of nowhere, after one brief mention in FotR, *after* all the fighting's over and gets Aragorn. It scarcely seems fair.<P> Clearly that would *not* do in a movie. The audience had to see something of Arwen and get some indication of why our hero is in love with her, (one of the abiding mysteries of the Book-verse). Now if they'd continued with the 'Arwen Warrior Princess' concept I would have been disturbed, but IMO Jackson has done a good job of building up Arwen and creating some sympathy and interest in her without leting her muck in where she doesn't belong, (the Fellowship and battles).

[Noxomanus]

I don't like Arwen,in the book or in the movies.LOTR doesn't need romance.It's about action and spectacular events goddammit!

[Peri]

Well, I know I've said this ten times over...at first I didn't care much for how they portrayed Arwen because PJ wasn't wasn't holding true to the books. But as time progressed, I began to like the character of Arwen more and more. I look at the movies for what they are, not what PJ decided to leave out or change. I thank my friend Lindsey for teaching me to do this.<P>I would have liked to have seen Glorfindel though!

[The Only Real Estel]

Glorifindil also frightens the remaining black riders & their horses into the floods with sticks on fire (he also gave more burning sticks to the other fellowship members). He also helped to cast the flood, and, had he not found them, they surely would've been caught by the blackriders (I doubt the hobbits ponys could go as fast as Glorifindils horse.). Also, the white horse he lent Frodo was obviously unlike any other horses (except a few of the Meras), and another ordinary horse wouldn't have done the job. He 'sent Frodo off alone' because he could do no more good with him than behind the blackriders, and perhaps to lighten the load on the horse. <p>[ May 01, 2003: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]