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

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.