[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It seems like every thriller or action film just has to have a five minute gratuitous romance bit added in and I wonder if it really is put there to keep the women in the cinema or if it's actually there so the blokes can look at Kirsten Dunst?

It seems to me that, nowadays, female characters in "action films" are no longer included just for the gratuitous romance. In the past, I believe that certainly was the case. But the tendency nowadays is for the female character to be strong-willed and independent. She is generally a primary character in her own right, and not simply a "romantic accesory" for the male lead. Compare, for example, the female characters in Bond films today with those of the '60s and '70s. And I suspect that this phenomenon has developed as women's "purchasing power" has increased. Rather than relying on their husbands' or parents' purchasing decisions, as was largely (although not exclusively) the case in times past, they now have the means to make their own purchasing decisions. Films have responded to this, no doubt in consequence of extensive market research.

Funnily enough, Jackson's initial instinct (no doubt in line with this trend) was to have Arwen as a much more active character. Yet the reaction of fans prompted him (guided, I believe, by Liv Tyler) to give her a much more passive role in the final cut.