Arnor
 

will there be any mentions or references to Arnor in the RotK movie. <P>everywhere i've looked it doesnt say anything about Aragorn being king of the Gondor and Arnor, just Gondor whats going on?

I think only Gondor is mentioned in the movies is because it is easier to explain that he is the king of Gondor, not the rightful heir to another kingdom that doesn't exist anymore but had authority over the other kingdom that does. This way they can avoid having to explain in detail the history of the dunedain and the internal politics of Gondor, and why the claim wasn't previously accepted, but was with Aragorn.

Well just saying the kingdom was destoryed is enough; the hsotility of Denethor to G, G's words to Pippin about this, ought ot cover it too.<P>It's not going to confuse anyone...it's just watering things down. Which makes it less satisfying. So, you could say that LotR is like a fine(st) wine, but I ahte wine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It's not going to confuse anyone...it's just watering things down. Which makes it less satisfying.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I am afraid that is it. PJ doesn't want to put too much on the minds of his 'poor' viewers, heck, imagibne the fallout if he included unexplained references that might cause the moviegoers to look at the maps or [gasp] read the books...<P>watered down indeed.

I could see the word popping up in an extended edition. Words like Imladris, Dunedan, Earendil, Elessar have been tossed around (especially in the extended editions). They zoom right over a non-book person's head, but I like the touch.<P>I can't see them really explaining Arnor. If you explained how the kingdom fell, you would have to explain why the heir to Arnor is also the heir to Gondor. You would have to talk about Anarion (who's name hasn't even popped up) and the two lines of Elendil. I think it might be a little much to put in.<P>H.C.

I think it will help those people who have only seen the movies, it keeps things simple. By the way lindil I think your comment about the moviegoers is a little too much, maybe those people who have only seen the movies have a good reason why they don't read the books. You should think about how your comments affect other people.<p>[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: ArathorofBarahir ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>By the way lindil I think your comment about the moviegoers is a little too much, maybe those people who have only seen the movies have a good reason why they don't read the books. You should think about how your comments affect other people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I do, and i did, and I stand by it. <P>I feel only sadness for people whose sole or even primary experience of Middle-Earth is PJ's movies. <P>IMO that would qualify as a tragedy.

I just have one more suggestion lindil, there are members of this site who have only seen the movies, so maybe you watch what you say, you might offend someone. <P>But hey if you like to do that then go ahead.

I agree with HC about the possibility of Arnor popping up in the EE. I mean, remember the Extended of FotR? They put a bunch of stuff in there that had been in the books, and it made all of the book-readers happier because we thought, "Yes! I thought that part was cut and they put it in!" So that may just happen in RotK.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I feel only sadness for people whose sole or even primary experience of Middle-Earth is PJ's movies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>And I am sure that they would feel touched by your concern, lindil. Seriously, however, there are many people who are really not interested in the books, but who are happy to watch the films. That is their choice and I am sure that they are content with it. <P>Really, though, can it seriously be said that Arnor's omission detracts from these films in any way?