Glorfindel is a girl?!

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by alatar

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.

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!

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Hammerhand

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

I cannot comprehend why...

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...

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.

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

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.

[Folwren]

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...

[alatar]

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...

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by Folwren

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...

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

Originally Posted by alatar

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.

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.

[Finduilas]

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. 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.

[Lalaith]

I think sending a girl out against nine black riders is silly

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

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

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

[Finduilas]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

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

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?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Hammerhand

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Finduilas

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.

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 ). 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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Folwren

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!!

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.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by alatar

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.

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".

[Folwren]

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.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

Surely you can not be serious.

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

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 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).

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".

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! ). Some see it as "dull" and quit reading it after "60" or so pages.

Another soul lost.