[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.