With the final episode of the trilogy due to come out in two months and the collectible CD with 45 extra minutes due out in November, I'm once again reminded of the only thing that perturbed me. Arwen.

Don't get me wrong. The job done on this picture far exceeded my somewhat pessimistic expectations and I dare say it's one of the best feats of cinematography to date. However, and I could be mistaken, there was no love interest between aragorn and arwen in the books. I understand the need to write that in....had there not already been a "love" interest there. Was it so ABSOLUTELY important that the first movie be written to contain something like this? Would it have significantly reduced the number of people that came to see the movie? Would it have reduced them at all? Serious questions.

I honestly don't see the point of this subplot addition. I think it adds very little to the story.

Having said all this. I'm very excited about the last movie. It looks as if he's going to be VERY strict about adering to the storyline in this movie. I'm looking forward to it!

Racmoor Kri'Shandria

*edit*
edited title in case some folks aren't prepared =)

Yes there is a love story with Aragorn and Arwen in the books... (whisper they get married at the end). What isn't in the book is her being a warrior princess type thing. She wasn't mentioned all that much. Because they put a lot of money into getting Liv Tyler, her character was enhanced quite a bit.

Yes there is a love story with Aragorn and Arwen in the books... (whisper they get married at the end). After seeing the second movie I was hoping he would go for Arwen. I'm actually reading the books after I see the movies, was a pity the book (TTT) doesn't actually go into much detail about Arwen, from my recollection.

I'm doing what you are Geddine, reading the books after the movies and /bonk Macnbaish for spoiling the end of that plot line!

Reading the books though, I did see hints at the love interest between Arwen and Aragorn. I also think it adds a lot to the movies. When I left the 2nd movie, I was thinking "hmm..what's going to happen, is he going to go for Arwen or the elf?" The way they portrayed it made it pretty intriguing imo.

Arwen is the elf I thought?

I'm horrible with names...I thought Arwen was the Liv Tyler elf hottie, not the Rohanian lady?

On second though...don't tell me. I'm reading the Trilogy again.

Arwen was very much Aragorn's love interest in the books. I won't go into much more than that.

However, one thing that bugged me was the first movie, the scene where Arwen flees with Frodo, chased by the black riders all the way to Rivendale. In the book, she was not in this scene at all. Frodo was harrowed away by Glorfindel (elf prince iirc). Also, they portrayed Arwen as using magic to cause the waters to rise up into Riders to smash the Black Riders. This is all good and well, but in the book, this was an enchantment on Rivendale that didn't have to get activated. Any invader would face it as I understand it.

There was an article out that was released the same time as all the hype pre-first installment. sorry, i've no links or what have you, but the jist of it was explaining that the directors felt that there needed to be a much larger role for the women in the films for several reasons.
They felt that more women would see the films, which creates more cash. They felt that the smaller roll of female characters in the text was in part due to the timeperiod it was written in, and that in todays more 'equality' based society it would translate poorly if the women didn't have a larger role.
And of course, last, but certianly not least on their minds, wether it was spoken of in public forum or not... sex sells. and you can't have those sultry sceens between arwen and aragorn without enticing the viewer's sexual imagination.

...bottom line, all the women of the trilogy have a larger role in the film than in the books because it makes for a better product in terms of social standards and pop culture.

i really wish i could remember where that article was published =(

there was no love interest between aragorn and arwen in the books.


There was, but Tolkien glossed over it. Relationships were not his strong suit, as you might imagine.

The movie has fleshed the romance out a bit more, of course. Too good an opportunity to waste. It also poses a tragic dilemma on an epic scale: here's an elf maiden with a lifespan measured in thousands of years, in love with a human who will die in another couple of decades. The elven folk are all heading overseas, so she also is faced with the choice of leaving her love or leaving her people.

The movie appears to present it as that she will not lose any of her extended lifespan regardless of choice. However, Tolkien presented it as she would give up those extended years if she chose to go with a human, I believe. So her choice of leaving her people would also mean giving up 1000+ years as well. Would you give up a 1000+ year lifespan for the sake of love?

Sorry, I have the names mixed up, Arwen is the elf maiden and Eowyn is the Kings niece. I'm worse at names than you, Aidon ;)

heheh it appears most of us are bad with names Eowyn was the one I was hoping he would go for. I guess me hopes are dashed now (unless Steve Jackson is smart enough to think like me)

Frodo was harrowed away by Glorfindel (elf prince iirc).Yeah I was told about that before I got to the book, but I guess with all the characters being introduced and the fact we can never remember any of the names right, it's all good and well they didn't introduce another (especially since thats about the only scene we'd see him).

Yeah I was told about that before I got to the book, but I guess with all the characters being introduced and the fact we can never remember any of the names right, it's all good and well they didn't introduce another (especially since thats about the only scene we'd see him).

Yah, but those of us who read the books dozens of times before the release, even little details like this were a disappointment ;)

Though, overall, I think the movies were done wonderfully. My two biggest complaints were that one, and how they destroyed Faramir's character in the 2nd movie.

My largest disappointment so far?

Tom Bombadil.

Originally posted by Scirocco
[

There was, but Tolkien glossed over it. Relationships were not his strong suit, as you might imagine.



I don't believe its that he was inept at relationships, as per se, but rather that he wrote the Lord of the Rings in a specific style that is somewhat reminiscent of the mythological epics of the various western mythos he used as the basis for Middle Earth. Interpersonal relationships simply took a back seat to heroic action and dialogue.

regarding bombadil,

again, the producers felt that there were many things in the lord of the rings that were un-neccessary to the plot. while they flesh out the novel and are an interesting read, they are, in fact, completely unimportant to the main story.
sightseeing through the barrow downs or meeting mr. tom were just not in the constraints of a film version.

same article, damn i wish i could find it... =(

cackles!

Originally posted by alyn cross
regarding bombadil,

again, the producers felt that there were many things in the lord of the rings that were un-neccessary to the plot. while they flesh out the novel and are an interesting read, they are, in fact, completely unimportant to the main story.
sightseeing through the barrow downs or meeting mr. tom were just not in the constraints of a film version.

same article, damn i wish i could find it... =(

cackles!

I don't care about excuses, I want Tom Bombadil.

Seriously, would you want to sit there and listen to this crazy middle aged immortal and his not-quite-human wife sing for hours? You might not mind, but I doubt the rest of the viewing public (who have not read the books, mind you) would like that.

Tom is good for having an understanding of the ring's powers (or lack thereof) since he was completely outside of the effects of the ring. He puts it on, laughs, says it is shiny, and breaks into a song. Doesn't turn invisible, become evil, or anything.

Just like the Scouring of the Shire. I doubt they will spend too much time on that. In the books the main plot seems to be about the Ring, but it is really about the Hobbits and how they have grown, matured, and become taller and grander than most other living beings. Even Gollum plays his important role in showing how even a mere hobbit, twisted by evil, can change the fate of the world. In the movies I think the plot they are sticking to is the Quest for the Ring and its destruction. Remember the opening in the Fellowship of the Ring - it's all about the terrible power of the ring.

The Lord of the Rings is not the Bible. It is not gospel. I'm glad that millions of people around the world are being introduced to Tolkien's works. Yes, his 'message' to life and humanity might not be fully appreciated, but in the end the Lord of the Rings is a good story. That is what is being told in the movies - a good story.

Originally posted by Geddine
After seeing the second movie I was hoping he would go for Arwen. I'm actually reading the books after I see the movies, was a pity the book (TTT) doesn't actually go into much detail about Arwen, from my recollection.

Bah, it's a pity that the movies go into so much detail about Arwen. :p They should have saved the money spent on Liv Tyler and just stuck to the storyline. For me, it would have been more interesting and immersive to have another actress to play Arwen in a more minor role, if only so that I don't subconsciously run the "Cryin'" video (IIRC) through my head everytime she appears on screen. It's kind of jarring; she just doesn't seem very "elfish" to me.

But, I'm getting off on a tangent. I like the movies thus far. I'm not too thrilled with some of the more radical departures from the books, but I can live with most of the changes. However, exaggerating the importance Arwen to the storyline, to me, just strikes of pandering in an effort to get those interested in "romance" to watch the movies. The storyline shouldn't be seriously "adjusted" just to attract a bigger audience.

Aldane Aglond
Ayonae Ro

Tom Bombadil.

OMG, can't believe I forgot that. Yeah, Tom was sorely missed :( He was by far one of the most interesting characters in all of Middle Earth. He existed before all the Wizards and even before their counterparts Balrogs.

immortal, singing or nae, he is, in essence, unimportant to the story.

you might even call him fluff!

/cackle