[The Saucepan Man]

I must admit that when the advance publicity for FotR first came out and Arwen action figures started appearing in the shops, I (having at that time not read LotR for many years) was thinking to myself "Who's Arwen?". I hadn't really noticed her in the book, having skimmed through the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen. Things like that and the introduction of Lurtz (who I had <B>definately</B> never heard of before) prepared me for the fact that there were going to be changes from the book.<P>Having said that, I have no problem with the substitution of Arwen for Glorfindel in FotR (if I'm honest, I wouldn't at that time really have recalled Glorfindel either ). It works for me, and I think that her expanded role in the series as a whole works too. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Glorfindel would have been very cool, except he would be another character to add into the already modified plotline. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree with Elrond Jr's point completely. It would have been confusing to (non-Tolkeinite) audiences to have Glorfindel appear just for this sequence. In fact, sticking totally to the book, he would not even have ridden with Frodo to the Ford, but merely turned up and provided the use of his horse, giving him an even smaller (and therefore less justifiable in film terms) role. And there was really no opportunity to develop his character elsewhere in FotR or in TTT. He could, I suppose, have taken the place of Elladan and Elrohir in RotK, but audiences would have forgotten who he was by then.<P>In the Bakshi film, Legolas took Glorfindel's part. That might have worked. However, given that Jackson and co wanted to bring out the love story between Aragorn and Arwen, culminating in their marriage, having Arwen make her appearance here makes sense. Her expanded role also allows for exploration of Aragorn's feelings over his destiny and contributes to the theme of Elves passing to the West, leaving ME in the hands of Men. On this basis, her scenes in TTT make sense too (although I feel that they could have dropped the lemming Warg dragging Aragorn over the cliff and subsequent horse nuzzling bit and worked in her scene there in another way).<P>And, rightly or wrongly (in my view rightly), I think that the filmmakers felt that there were simply not enough strong female characters in the book for modern film audiences. This is not political correctness or tokenism, but simply expanding the role of an existing character in the book to provide another central female character in the film.<P>I don't think that she is really portrayed as the Warrior Princess that she seems to get labelled as. I know that this was the filmmakers' original plan, but I'm glad that they ditched it. Having her at Helm's Deep would have been a big mistake and, while I am sure that she will turn up (with Anduril and Aragorn's banner) in RotK, I sincerely hope that they do not have her fighting at Pelennor Fields. That would detract far too much from Eowyn's central role in that battle.<P>Also, why does her role in FotR suggest that she is able to stand up to the Ringwraiths? All it suggests to me is that she was able to outride them to the Ford. OK, she defies them to come and get Frodo when she is safely across the river knowing (as Glorfindel did in the book) that the flood will come down. But she does not bring the flood down on them any more than Glorfindel did in the book. The flood is commanded by Elrond with Gandalf adding a few touches of his own, just as it was in the book. (The white horses in the flood falling down upon the Ringwraiths was, for me, one of the great breathtaking moments of the film.)<P>I have said a lot on my view of the films on various threads, and some of that is reflected here. I don't think that they are perfect. There are a number of changes and character variations (particularly in TTT) that I don't think work. But overall, given the need for the films to have mass audience appeal (rather than just cater for us fans) and the need to recoup the massive budget required to bring ME to life, I think that both of the films that have so far been released number, as films, among the greats. Tar Palantir, I think, put it very well when he said:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But be honest, those twists and turns are not in the film, and never could be given the financiers and audience for these films. Even the most earnest effort would leave you with a dragging overly complex and ultimately unsatisfying film experience for the masses. Oh, it's not for the masses you say? Is it for the 'purists'? The 'purists' will never be satisfied. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That sums up my feelings very well.<P>Davem said:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think LotR is slowly unravelling on screen, mainly because the film makers, while they may love Tolkien's work, clearly have way too little insight into what Tolkien was actually doing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I don't get the sense that the story is unravelling at all. Yes, many of the intricacies of the books are skipped over or omitted. And not everything is going to neatly tie up in the same marvellous way that it does in the books. But, does that really matter when we are talking about film adaptations of the books which have been made to cater for the modern film-going public? For me, they hang together very well as films, given the complexity of the source material, certainly moreso than many films that I have seen that are labelled as classics.<P>Well, having gone completely off topic for the last few paragraphs, I will finish up with my simple answer to the question posed by the thread: Yes.