Why did Arwen go to find the hobbits?
 

I know why Glorfindal whent to get them in the book, but why did Arwen ride out to find them. I do not recall a line in the movie saying why she did that. I do remember her saying that she had been looking for them for two days. Did Peter Jackson just forget that part or did a miss something.

All for love
 

Mr. Jackson replaced Glorfindel, with Arwen, only to build up the "love" between her and Aragorn. As with most of the scenes with Arwen, I mean I'm pretty sure Arwen didn't telepathically cyber with Aragorn throughout the story, that was just a way for Mr. Jackson to incorporate the love between the two. In fact, a friend of mine has a really funn parody of this scene in the movie.

Unknown Voice: What's this a ranger caught off his guard?
Aragorn: Sounding a little womanly lately Glorf-(turns) Arwen? Where's Glorfindel? And why are you on his horse? Don't tell me you tied him up again and stole his horse?
Arwen: I learn from the best. (to explain that I will have to take you into another parody scene, but I might get reprimanded)

What I ment to say was in the book the elves that Frodo and company travled with while still in the shire eventually came to Rivendell and told Elrond about them and he sent out Glorfindal and others. Since that part was left out of the movie what made Arwen go out to look for them?

Elven instinct or a plot hole are the only explanations I can conjure up.

Aragorn! :rolleyes: :D ;)

Defying Agent Elrond
 

She was probably trying to escape that overbearing, domineering father of hers ... :D

Even if Elrond knew that the hobbits were coming despite not being told so, why would Arwen be sent. She was the daughter of Elrond, (the lady of Rivendell) so why would her safety be risked especially when the Nazgul were near when there would have been plenty of others better suited to finding them and going against the Nazgul, such as warriors like Glorfindel.

Yes but I guess Peter Jackson did sort of have to explain Arwen throughout the film to make sure that audiences unfamiliar with the book knew where she came from and why Aragorn won't love Eowyn.

We presume that Arwen is looking for Frodo for the same reason that Glorfindel did. In the book, Glorfindel finds Frodo after he has been looking for 9 days - not the 2 that Arwen proclaims. He left on October 9 and found Frodo at dawn on October 18. That was (yet another) odd and pointless change.

This is another example of people who know the book making a movie without carefully considering the fact that everything should flow logically, even for those who haven't read the book. Glorfindel set out because of word from Gildor's group that Frodo met in the forest. In the movie of course, Gildor was never seen, thus botching the whole situation. Most viewers likely presumed that Arwen was just wondering why Aragorn hadn't made it home in time for supper. After all, she had Shake 'n' Bake, and Bilbo helped.

Way to go, Petey. :rolleyes:

Ack! Plot holes make my head hurt!

I never even thought about that before... nice move, PJ. Would it have killed ya to put in Gildor?

You think Arwen being psychic is a plot hole? - what about Gandalf thinking he could get from Hobbiton to Isengard and Back to Bree in the same time as it would take Frodo and Sam to get from Hobbiton to Bree... I know they only have little legs but really...

Voralphion said:

Well, if (and this is a big if) Agent Elrond and Book Elrond are indeed the same person, this is not really a problem. After all, Elrond's sons were always going off on scavenger hunts, camping trips, and other larks. Movie Arwen is every bit as tough as her brothers, Nonexistent Movie Elladan and Nonexistent Movie Elrohir, and we know that she can hurl epithets across rivers with the best of them.

She wasn`t looking for the hobbits all! She really just wanted to find Aragorn! ;)

Just kidding. It`s the same as the books, she just replaced Glorfindel. Really, I like Arwen, but personally I wish they left Glorfindel in. :)

Don't forget...
 

Mithalwen don't forget the Gandalf going from the Shire, to Rohan, to Minas Tirith, back the Shire, within a time span of a few days, and Shadowfax just kind of appears out of no where.

Indeed Boromir ... these little matters of time and space are so flexible in the movies .... and that long arduous journey that Elrond can just pop on his horse and more or less instantaeneously make to deliver Anduril - without crumpling his beautiful (but not exactly practical ) blue velvet cloak......

I guess PJ thought it was better to save the extra money and not hire more actors :rolleyes: but I think it`s a shame, I would really loved to see Glorfindels`character in the movie :(

Arwen replaces Glorfindel for three reasons, as far as I can tell.

First of all, this is a movie. You can't have a zillion characters running around, and expect people to remember each and every one of them. There are time-constraints as well. If Jackson were to stick in Glorfindel, and then proceed to setting up the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen, that would have taken ages.

Second of all (and this has been mentioned before, but I would like to flesh this topic out somewhat), you can't catch a single glimpse of Arwen in Rivendell in the first film, and then, two years later, suddenly having the same chick marrying Aragorn out of the blue. Neither does the sort of narrative subtlety that characterizes Aragorn's longing for Arwen in the book exactly work in a cinematic medium. All these questions of pacing come up. And frankly, I can't picture modern audiences getting particularly excited over a relationship that was to be developed in the exact manner that it is in the book. It wouldn't come across as exciting, or tender, or even meaningful. It would mostly be like, "Um, what? Why is he going for the housewife when Eowyn is such hot stuff?" Once again, because cinema works differently. And because watching pretty women do stuff is fun.

Third of all, Liv Tyler looks hot on a horse.

I was actually pretty satisfied with the way Arwen was portrayed in the first film. It was later, during this whole "Arwen is dying" crap in RotK that I got irritated. Neither did I think the Osanwe scene was well-done. Actually, the only appearance of hers I enjoy in the other two films, is during the flash-forward scene to Aragorn's death. What a mourning dress! Everything else pretty much felt heavy-handed and sentimental.

But in FotR, seeing her being chased by the Nazgul was something. And I thought the kissing scene on the bridge worked. I thought it had just the right amount of melodrama and mystique. Not to mention the great background music.

I'd remember them.

Plus Glorfindel is only one extra name, not a zillion.

And yeah, the movie did need to do things slightly different to develop the Aragorn+Arwen relationship- but with all the other Aragorn & Arwen stuff they did the FOTR horseback rescue was not necessary at all.
I'll give you that.

But as Lush said, there is a school of thought (also attended by me) which holds that "all the other Aragorn & Arwen stuff they did" was pretty grim.
The ford scene, and yes, the bridge love scene, were about the only Arwen appearances I really liked. It all went downhill from there - Arwen dying over the Ring, and then the snog at the coronation, were two of the low-points of RotK for me. (Not that I've got a particular problem with snogging, you understand, it was the hugely unTolkienish public nature of it that I objected to.)
And as I've said before, there is a way of justifying Arwen at the ford, canon-wise: in the book, Frodo in extremis calls on Elbereth, and Luthien - and Arwen is, after all, held to be Luthien reborn. (I do also agree with another school of thought on this forum, that movie-Frodo could have been a bit more proactive in defying the Nine, but then I have an issue with Elijah's little-junkieboy-lost perfomance in general)
Legolas - the change from nine days to two might be to make it seem they were closer to Rivendell than they were in the book when Glorfindel found them?

I don't understand why PJ changed so much things. Like this arwen/glorfindel thing and when frodo is traveling across the shire. Why coulden't it be like in the book? where frodo is traveling with sam and merry and where they are going to the house in buckland.
I think it was unnecessary of PJ to change all these stuff Tolkien put so much time writing.. Tolkien is probably turning in his grave..

yupperdoddles
 

its true pj definetly should have taken out the part with fatty bolger in buckland.

(Moderator's note - The place to introduce yourself is on the newcomers thread (NEW MEMBERS: INTRODUCE YOURSELF HERE, to be found on the Novices and Newcomers forum main page) - welcome to the Downs and enjoy yourself here!)

The absence of Gildor really wouldn't affect Elrond's sending a messenger to search for Frodo. Aragorn had already gone to wait for the hobbits at Bree, and had probably told Elrond when he'd have brought them to Rivendell. Upon learning that Aragorn had not arrived back on time and that the Nine were abroad, Elrond sent his messenger (in this case, Arwen) to search for Aragorn and the hobbits.

As far as how Elrond wouldn't know that the ringwraiths were searching for the hobbits while Aragorn did know about them, I would guess that in the movie Aragorn didn't find out about the ringwraiths until after he was on his way to Bree.

The whining continues
 

Been thinking about the Arwen at the Fords scene. What was PJ trying to accomplish? Methinks that he wanted to do two things: get more Liv into FotR, and show that Arwen wasn't going to be the damsel in distress nor the parting gift at the end of the quest. Arwen would be shown, and shown as being strong.

So we got the scenes that we got.

I think that PJ could have accomplished these two goals better (imagine that! ;)), but maybe he was constrained by wanting/needing a car chase scene early on in the movie. Sure, Arwen replaces Glorfindel, and I could deal with that, but when she becomes Frodo's taxi driver and savior, well...

We could still have included the car chase scene sans Arwen (where Arwen and Frodo Baggage flee from the Nine), but maybe as Frodo was mostly dead, the horse would have appeared more heroic than maybe was comfortable for some actors - and you always have to consider the Oscars, and just how *do* you cut a horse's 'thank you' speech short? The other issue is that it appears that Arwen and Frodo ride a good bit of the day, and so the distance for the other three hobbits to cover to be at the Fords concurrent with Frodo and the Nine was impossible - I mean, hey, they ain't natural sprinters nor long distance runners like Dwarves!

So, to put things aright, we would need to shorten the race to the Ford so that at least the Ranger and Arwen could appear at the Fords when Frodo resists the Nine - just like in the Book. So, as I see things, we'd have mostly dead Frodo ride from the Nine, and it would take a few moments for him to get to the Ford. After he crosses and the Nine begin to dip their hooves, Frodo could go through the whole "Go back" scene, which would help as we would never hear "She-elf." When the Nazgul are almost ready to overtake Frodo (you know how in movies distances can appear both close *and* far, like Gimli's head and Balin's Tomb in Moria), who appears on the other side of the river but Arwen and that Ranger guy. Arwen draws for her sword and calls out those immortal Tolkienesque words,

"If you think that you can claim him, then you're all wet!"

The Nine turn to evaluate this new threat, and as they are still in the water (don't worry for the horses, as during filming they could wear protective boots), Arwen mutters under her breathe and WHOOSH! The Nine are flushed away.

Frodo, falling from the horse, sees Arwen in all her glory...oh wait, we've already done that one...and then all fades to black.

To recap: No She-Elf, Arwen is given screen time and shown to be powerful. No horses are harmed nor have to appear at an awards show, Frodo is shown to still retain some backbone, and so what's not to like?

How do you know, she never rode, or even got on, one?

THats what I was going to say.

Anyway, I like alatar's version (but I would tweak it a little differently).

Simple extrapolation. If we assume that Liv is hot, and if horses in general do not reduce hotness, it can be safely presumed that Liv would retain her innate hotness seated upon a horse.

I think she meant that it might be her stunt double (assuming she has one), and this is the only reason I agreed, if thats not what Folwren meant then I agree with you, alatar

I understand completely and am continuing to be silly. Am more interested in your tweaks.

And note that I claim to know nothing of 'hot' or horses.

Two words: Phillipa Boyens.