arwen

[the_master_of_puppets]

i find it stupid arwen crying when she took frodo across the ford and lay him on the ground. she hardly knew him for gods sake! and the way she skulks around behind aragorn trying to act as if she knows it all about him & his family! lol, nah the latter isnt so annoying as the first part. I must say i prefered her in the books though, although i like her much, much more than eowyn! for some reason i took a dramatic dislike to her: my mum thinks because of her luv 4 aragorn. <P>anyone else have the same views?

[Elven-Maiden]

Sorry, but I have to disagree- I liked Arwen in the movie, a lot better than in the book. I didn't like the fact that she replaced Glorfindel, but what she did was good. It brought out a personality, and it made Aragorn's love for her have depth.

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

I thought that she was good in the movie. Also, she should know about Aragorn's past - after all, she has lived for thousands of years & Aragorn basically grew up in Rivendell.

[Daegwenn]

I thought that Arwen in the movie was great...although I have to agree that she shouldn't have replaced Glorfindel, I understand the reason why it was done. <P>Liv Tyler played Arwen exactly how I would have expected. She had to have known of Aragorn's history because, as Tigerlily Gamgee said, she, her brothers and father had practically raised Aragorn.<P>As for her crying when Frodo dies...that just goes back to how elves act. Elves are sorrowful. They cry as much as they laugh from what I can gather--and she wasn't ignorant to the fact that Frodo was the ringbearer and everything rested on his shoulders.<P>~~Daegwenn

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

MOP, I agree, Arwen's expanded role was annoying. I understand the reasons for it, but PJ and the script writers handled it poorly.<P>-The macho warrior-elf persona was odd, out of place. Didn't fit Arwen. Liv did okay with a poorly redone character.<P>-The way she was brought in, surprising Aragorn in the woods, was awkward and distracting. Our attention should have remained on the injured Frodo. As it was you forgot he was hurt while they ran off with a poorly timed intro to the romance.<P>-The Fords, again, she upstaged Frodo. MOP, you have a good point, crying over someone she didn't know was absurd. I found so much annoying with that scene...<P>-Rivendell, I disagree, that was the time to introduce her, and her knowing so much about Aragorn was fitting. <P>Good news is, I hear they're not going to repeat the mistake of making her a warrior princess. No more fight scenes for Arwen. <P>They're saying Liv Tyler can't pull them off, but really, Arwen can't pull them off. <P>You can't have someone soft and gentle also be a cold-blooded killer. Save it for Eowyn.<p>[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Lush]

I liked Arwen's role. For lack of a better word, she was yummy (this is coming from a heterosexual female, mind you). She was a glimmer of beauty and hope, and from my point of view, there was little of the "warrior princess" about her. She was a swift Elven rider, and she got Frodo across the River in time, but it's not like she turned around and began hacking away at the Nazgul! <BR>I thought that the fact that it was this vulnerable she-Elf who had to save Frodo upped the tension. Judging from the look on Aragorn's face as he watched her ride off, it was obvious that had she been overtaken, she would have fought a losing battle. The chase sequence was thus made more effective. Plus, we had to know and understand why it was that Aragorn chose Arwen; to simply say that it was her grace and beauty would not have satisfied today's audience's, for better or for worse. Here she was presented as a courageous, yet equally gentle and sensitive lady.

[Balefalathiel]

I've said this many times, but I almost hated Arwen in the movie.(for same reasons that you, the_master_of_puppets and because her part in the movie was so big..) Lets not even talk about the next movie...

[Mayla Took]

First of all, I do not like Liv Tyler as Arwen (that might be because I don't like Liv Tyler all to together). I think that the way that PJ portrayed Arwen as a "warrior" was very irritating! Her character was totally changed! I also despise that corny line that she says to the Nazgul "if you want him, come and claim him!" I always imagined Arwen as a more meek mannered Elf, and not a feminist worrier! I think PJ could have left the tomboy role to Eaowen in the next movie! Eaowen is far enough tomboy to cover the film!

i have to say that as much as i dislike Liv Tyler, i thouth she played Arwen exeptionally well, okay they replaced glorfindel but they needed to develop her chacrter. she cried for frodo because he was dying, and gonna become wraith,a servant to sauron, anyone would cry at that. i do however think that at some point she was slightly "corny" the "if you weant him come and claim him "line and the dodgey cut of the tree with the overload sound effect was strange, but apart from that she is how i imagined her, i dont think that she was that much of a warrior, more like an angel like Sam described her as, Eowyn will be allot more "xena the warrior princess" than Arwen, arwen was beautiful, i loved her dress in rivendell when she was with aragorn, it was beautiful!

[Mayla Took]

Yes, all the costumes were very well done! I enjoyed that aspect of the film greatly! I also like Galadriel's dress when she talks to Frodo by the mirror. I think it fit the scene very well!

[the_master_of_puppets]

i kind of understand the scene in rivendell, but i just found it a bit...erm, cheesey? just how she seemed so sure of herself and i felt it made aragorn look weak. i thought it was inaproptiote 4 her to put a knife to his neck and go 'whats this a ranger caught off his guard?'- i mean she obviously would have knowen what was going on and the last thing u'd want to do was pretend to knife the guy when frodos lifes in jepardy!<P>i agree liv did well with a perhaps not-4-the-better changed character...i just kind of found her alot more annoying than in the books. and i still cant see her crying at frodo: maybe getting frustrated, worried, frightended 4 him: but crying? it just seemed so out of place after the whole heroine act. and yes her actions with aragorn were almost taking away our attentions from frodo...<P>maybe her role will improve in the next 2 films...lol

[Mayla Took]

Well, the part when she was crying over Frodo was frusstrating to me because I was saying to myself "Don't stop now you moron! Hurry up and get to Elrond!" I felt that she was waisting time that could have been used to attempt to safe him! She could have cried later when at Rivendell! Ha ha, that is how I feel.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

She was portrayed as a warrior-princess type: "If you want him, come and claim him!" is just that. Liv Tyler just managed to soften the role a bit. She was well-cast as Arwen.<P>I dislike pseudo-feminist roles. There's something fundamentally wrong with putting a sword in a woman's hand (or arrogant words in her mouth) to make her "look as though she's strong." There's an underlying assumption there that without masculinizing the image, women are weak. *eyebrows raise delicately* Oh Really? I knit and crochet, paint wildflowers and look dainty. I've yet to wield a sword or throw a <I>Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon</I> karate kick. <BR>No one considers me anything less than indomitable. <P>The strength of Arwen was her ageless serenity and piercing compassionate insight, her ability to see right through others. There was no need to weaken her with a wild horse ride or silly words.<p>[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Vinyamarien]

I really disliked her first sentence "What's this, a ranger, caught off his guard?!" while she is holding her blade at Aragorn's throat. Even if she didn't know the ring-bearer was wounded, I don't think she would have played stupid games like that to her husband-to-be...

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Welcome to the Downs, Vinyamarian.<P>Yes, moments like these prove that Tolkien was a much better writer than the one who created the movie script.<P>How's that for inarguable?

[Lush]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I dislike pseudo-feminist roles. There's something fundamentally wrong with putting a sword in a woman's hand (or arrogant words in her mouth) to make her "look as though she's strong." There's an underlying assumption there that without masculinizing the image, women are weak. *eyebrows raise delicately* Oh Really? I knit and crochet, paint wildflowers and look dainty. I've yet to wield a sword or throw a Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon karate kick. <BR>No one considers me anything less than indomitable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I will have to respectfully disagree with you on that one, Maril (wow, that's a rare instance). Maybe it was just in the society I was brought up in as a child-a dangerous city where women, nonetheless, were encouraged to be as meek as possible. Personally, I was tired of always having to fear for my body and life, and dreamed of wielding a sword as a child. If it was a perfect world we lived in, women would not have to learn to defend themselves, but such is not the case as many of us know, and as some have, sadly, experienced. <BR>I have no problem with knitting and cooking, in fact, I embrace them (though I'm more likely to burn down the house before I get those damn casseroles right). They are not, however, for everyone, particularly in this day and age. I don't wish to go into detail, but there have been indeed several incidents in my life when fighting skills would have done me good.<p>[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Kalimac]

I know this is a pretty divided issue, but it seemed to me that Arwen's characterization within the movie (how similar she was to the book character is another kettle of fish) was really well-done. It didn't seem to me that she was riding a horse and carrying a sword because it "made her look strong" - once she was in Rivendell and wearing long dresses with no swords in sight, she certainly didn't give the impression of having grown weaker. There was nothing particularly feminine or unfeminine about it; she was doing it because it was the sensible thing to when traveling out alone into a country like that. It's not unrealistic that she would know how to defend herself like that; for one thing she's had 3,000 years to practice, for another thing there's always Celebrian's fate to consider.<P>In a weird way the whole rider-Arwen thing reminded me of the way the early-medieval nomadic tribes worked (and probably later ones, haven't read about those). In those societies they bred horses for a living, and the girls were taught to ride and handle weapons alongside the boys not to make any sort of feminist statement (they certainly weren't considered equal in other ways) but simply because the way of life was so hard and the threat of attack so constant that every single person was needed to help defend the camp; it simply made no sense to handicap half the population for no good reason since it could lead the tribe being wiped out. And while the Elves certainly weren't living a bare-bones existence like that, their population had been decreasing slowly for a long time, and at that point in the story were pretty sure that their major strongholds were going to be attacked very soon. In a situation like that you're going to want to make sure that *every* able-bodied person capable of fighting knows how to do so. (Though it is hard to imagine Galadriel with a sword. OTOH even in the books there's a distinct impression that anyone who crosses her is going to be very unhappy afterwards).

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Boy. I guess I wasn't clear in my point.<P>Strength does not come from anything other than personal will. When you point a gun at a person, a soldier will tell you it's the will to look a man in the eye and pull the trigger that counts. False bravado is apparent whether it comes out of the mouth of a man or woman.<P><B>The Arwen character in the movies is played with false bravado.</B> If I were looking at her down the barrel of a gun or the other end of a knife, I know she'd falter. You can tell. The Arwen from the books I would take more seriously, because someone with her patience (regardless of any feminine manner) has much more real backbone. It's not the weapon nor the words, but what backs it up that matters.<P>I'm sorry if my joke about knitting confused the issue. If you knew me better neither of you would have taken it as some kind of *****-wimp general view of women. I'm a good marksman, I've been a construction worker (concrete construction) simply because I wanted to, and once in the past faced down five young guys who were breaking into my house, with a (rather large) knife. Trust me, it wasn't the knife that won. Not against five. You can look a coward in the eyes and know that he's lost before a word is said. I'm tiny and hardly intimidating. You'd think. <P>Women who are taught to be weak I think are just taught to doubt themselves. Anyone who is taught that feminimity is inherently weak (I do knit and do appear feminine I think) is simply taught a false concept of strength. <P>E-masculating (ha!) female images with a sword & false bravado underlines that same concept of weakness, from another angle.<P>Perhaps I have this perspective because no one has ever encouraged me to be anything other than myself, and I come from four generations of feminists (my great-grandmother was a suffragette, grandmother one of few women of her time to attend college, etc.).<p>[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Lush]

Yes, Maril, you have made yourself very clear, but once again, I just didn't think that there was much of a cold-blooded killer in Liv Tyler's Arwen. She was a fast rider with a sword at her side, because, like Kalimac pointed out, <I>those were the times</I> during which such skills were necessary. And I in no way took offence to your knitting reference. I do not however think that Arwen as a "pseudo-feminist" icon. She was too enchanting and sweet for that, and remember, she never <I>attacked</I> anyone. She did however challenge the Nazgul to lure them into the water and thus to get rid of them. If anything, she was cunning and calculating, not violent, not a soldier, not a Lara Croft (ugh). <BR>I also think that her tears at the Ford were a justified addition-she is supposed to be a sensitive Elf, no?<p>[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Kalimac]

Hello, Lush! Glad my last post was clear, sometimes I wonder when about that I'm writing this late at night.<P>Marilea, as it happens I'm also a knitter (not a very good one, but still working at it). I wasn't offended by that at all, don't worry about it.<P>We seem to be arguing across each other right now; your main points are (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that Arwen's strong-and-feminine image from the book has been superseded by stereotypically masculine images of strength (sword etc) and that this by implication means the filmmakers are saying that traditional feminine images are inherently weak. Secondly, that the New Arwen is actually weaker than the Arwen in the book, and despite all her new trappings and her attitude she would cave into physical or emotional pressure sooner - false bravado. <P>For the first point all I can really say is that the book Arwen and the film Arwen are different people and that comparing them is apples and oranges. The film Arwen is sort of an alternative-universe version - no, Tolkien's Elves didn't send their women into open country on dangerous tracking assignments, but considering their circumstances (dwindling and under threat, like I said in my first post) they very plausibly could have, in fact Tolkien gives something of a model for that sort of thing later on with Eowyn. And if the book Elves had done that, the book Arwen would probably have been rather like the film Arwen; ridden a fast horse, dressed in warm clothes and carried something for self-defense. When the filmmakers gave Glorfindel's role to Arwen, for good or ill, they had to make her plausible; and sending anyone of either sex out on that sort of errand without stereotypically masculine things like a weapon would be incredibly foolish, and a foolish Elf is much harder to believe in than a female Elf with a sword. I honestly don't think the filmmakers were saying that stereotypically feminine things are weak by giving Arwen a sword, all they were trying to do was make her expanded role believable. And feminine strength gets its due once they're back in Rivendell; we're seeing Arwen in her home territory there and it becomes obvious that she was only wearing the sword out of necessity. She's very feminine now but no less strong.<P>As for false bravado - it's hard to comment on that because it's a fairly subjective term. Lush made the point that Arwen was obviously not a natural born killer, so if you mean that if she had actually tried to fight with the Nazgul she would have been beaten, I agree, no question. The "If you want him..." line (and yes, there have been better lines in cinematic history ) was a challenge that she could not back up, but on the other hand it did have the purpose and effect of luring the Nazgul into the water. Maybe if the movie Arwen was faced with a gun or a knife she would cave, despite her sword; it's really hard to tell what anyone would do in that particular situation until they're in it. <P>One more thing, though; I would like to be devil's advocate for a second and defend false bravado (in the sense of acting like you're stronger than you really are or feel yourself to be). Sometimes putting up a front like that can lead to the real thing, and I'm speaking from personal experience as well. I'm not the "will of adamant" sort of person; on some everyday issues I tend to like to give in for the sake of keeping the peace, which isn't the greatest habit. But one fine evening about two years ago under circumstances for I won't give the whole tedious background, I ended up in a train compartment on the Russian border being interrogated by four officials, all of whom had guns pointed at me. It only lasted a few hours, but while it lasted it was no help to think "well, they *probably* can't do anything serious to me." Afterwards when they let me go, of course, it seemed self-evident. Anyway, I flinched from the guns and they could tell, I'm sure; inside I was so terrified that I would have given them quite a lot just to go away. But for some reason - and stupidly enough it was probably because I felt embarrassed at the idea of giving so quickly like that - I acted as (politely) aggressive as I could and just insisted that I hadn't done anything, thank you very much, now would you let me go? And as it went on and I kept up my argument I actually could look at the guns without flinching; the false bravado was turning into something rather more real. Not to mention something pretty foolhardy too, now that I think about it. But in the end they got tired of it and let me go without my having to give over any of my money, which I'm pretty sure was what they were after in the first place. <P>OK, enough grandstanding. Sorry about that, I was just trying to show how I found that you can never tell how people will react, also that faking it can sometimes make it real.<P>I do apologize about the length of the post, and if you've gotten all the way to the bottom, thank you for reading . Please reply if you'd like! And now I'd better go to bed before my brain melts completely.

[the_master_of_puppets]

i didnt feel she was any stronger than in the books because she had a sword and did the whole fords scene- i still believe arwens strength is more to do with her mind, if uc what i mean, i just thought some of the things she said and the way she did things was tacky. the ranger caught of his guard this especially irritates me. and come and claim him un all that? erm, cheesey!! but i think it works. however making aragorn look weak is something i do not like!

[Mayla Took]

I agree MoP. Everything else they did with the Arwen character was tolerable. But making Aragorn "off his guard" or degrading him in anyway is just too much of a "low blow"! I believe they carried that aspect a little too far.

Arwen was ok in the movie, but I didn't like the way she took over Glorfindel.<P>Wow! Those are long posts! If it took you as long to write them as it did for me to read them you must have spent ages!

Yey! I'm a shade!

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

"Fiction is the willing suspension of disbelief." Fantasy doubly so. <P>I think the main point is, did you find Arwen believable in her movie role? I for one did not. It's a matter of how far your willing suspension was willing to go. There were a number of small clues - including "A ranger, caught off his guard?" -that added up to a dissonance of traits which I did not, and do not, buy. <P>For one thing, isn't Arwen hundreds if not thousands of years old? If she's been wielding a blade all this time with the other elves, wouldn't she have had a little practice and been confident with it, a real warrior princess? <P>If the martial role was new, why? There're no circumstances or backstory to explain, her new expanded role is poorly thought out. The elves were fading, not recently decimated.<P>Kalimac, your theory is great, but it's not included in either the movie or the Lord of the Rings. <P>I'm sorry, Lush, we disagree rarely, but as far as the theory she was not playing a martial role: hogwash and foolishness. You don't pull a blade on <I>anyone</I> in the woods unless you're being aggressive. It's a very aggressive martial action, though it demonstrates a - yes - false bravado-style ignorance of weapons, as that's something you're trained never to do, in both fencing and guns (not to mention the bow). It's a basic. (There's another point against your idea, Kalimac, that Arwen like all elves carried a sword regularly. Lush, again, if she's sent with a sword, untrained, inexperienced, out into the wild - why?) It's particularly foolhardy with an expert swordsman, hair-triggered, fresh from a fight. Just begging for tragedy.<P>"What's this, a range - ?"<BR><I>*dodge* *Spin!* - <B>THA-WHACK!</B></I><BR>Aragorn stares down at his newly beheaded girlfriend. Uh. Ex-girlfriend.<p>[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Lush]

Hey Maril, maybe she loved her boyfriend so much she decided to sneak out of Rivendell, and help him in whatever way she could. Foolish? Yes. Plausible? YES. Admirable? Doubly so. A very far stretch from the book Arwen indeed, but an enjoyable one nonetheless. <BR>Also, I still hold to the opinion that Arwen was NOT portrayed as a warrior princess, she was too sensitive for that. Remember, when she pulled the sword on the Nazgul, her intention wasn't to fight them, but to make them think "Who does she think she is? Let's make mincemeat out of this little Elven priss!"- and to thus step into the river, and get washed away. Yeah, the whole "a ranger caught off his guard" line was a little bit cheesy, but then once again, I seriously doubt Aragorn would have chopped her head off. He would have probably recognized her sweet scent.

[Kalimac]

OK, we're way out into the hypothetical universe now. Lush, nice point about her maybe sneaking out to help (though in that case you can only regret that there wasn't a scene showing Elrond and Arwen's first encounter after Frodo was brought to Rivendell). Marilea, I see what you mean about her not being as skilled a fighter as a 3,000 warrior princess would be, but I wasn't thinking of her so much as a real fighter (or warrior princess) as a defender, sort of like the difference between someone who studies martial arts for competition purposes and someone who takes some self-defense courses and learns enough to get by on. <P>And no, there's no support in Tolkien for the theory, and I doubt he himself would really have thought of Elves that way if you put it to him. All I was trying to do was find an explanation that would plausible for the ME that is presented both in the movie and the books; though if you look at the books you could always hypothesize a few more reasons why Arwen wasn't terribly skilled with the sword - maybe she only got interested after meeting Aragorn and he had to teach her (they did meet 60 years before the Fellowship, but he was away most of the time so wouldn't have had all that time to help her practice). Maybe what happened to her mother made her start thinking a little swordcraft wouldn't be a bad thing to have. <P>BTW sorry if my last post freaked some of you out! . (In terms of length, I mean). I really didn't mean to make it that long. Now why couldn't the words flow like that when I was writing papers, that's what I'd like to know.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

This goes back to my original point, that the revised Arwen character was awkwardly done. The very fact we have to streeeeeeetch to come up with plausible reasons (maybe she snuck out, maybe she was only partially trained..) for her implausible and inconcruous actions demonstrates that the script writers just didn't do a good job. <P>I'd welcome a believable warrior-princess, or a good reason an untutored swordswoman would be blundering about in the woods pointing sharp objects at her friends. <BR>Trust me, that demonstrates she is untutored. <P>I've had one fencing lesson from my friend Anna. <BR>Lesson 1: do not point the epee at people unless you're actually fencing. The point is angled towards the ground when not fighting.<P>I beat 250 girls in an archery contest.<BR>Lesson 1: do not point nocked arrows at anything other than your target. Until ready to fire, the arrows are angled towards the ground.<P>I was taught to use a firearm when I was 12 (what can I say, I'm from Michigan, home of the Michigan Militia).<BR>Lesson 1: do not point the barrel of a gun (loaded or unloaded) at anything other than your intended target. Do not draw a gun unless you intend to use it. Until ready to fire, the barrel is pointed away from you, at the ground.<P>Notice a pattern emerging? It even goes back to your mom yelling "Don't you point that stick at your brother, not even if you're playing!" If Arwen had even one lesson with a sword, this would be it. If you watch Aragorn and Boromir fight, before the fight, the swords are lowered, and when the fight's over the swords are lowered again. That's not tiredness, that's training.<P>Interesting point, Aragorn is a particularly aggressive swordsman, very dangerous to both himself and others. He almost has no defensive moves, every defense is an attack, he relys mostly on point action, which extends your reach to the maximum length of the sword plus your arm length, but can leave you really vulnerable. You'd better be winning if you fight like that. Boromir's more traditional, he'll do two defensive moves, then a lot of cross-action cuts, and wear down his opposition. Call it Bash and Slash. Slower, the opposition gets closer, but more steady. He never leaves an opening. Arrows and overwhelming force would be the only way to get him. <P>Anyways, if you really love the romance, and like Arwen, Lush, you incurable romantic, no doubt you're willing to overlook such details.<p>[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Weber]

i thought she was just better in the book the way she was. it made the movie like a romantic movie in rivendell

[Lush]

Yeah...'Cause you know, pretty much ALL of the movie was set in Rivendell, with lots and lots of smooching that yours truly just loves...<BR>I wonder if this post is so heavy because of the irony that it is laden with? <BR>Seriously though; I think that Arwen was one of the movies' weakest characters (sending Legolas out to help Aragorn and the wee ones would have made more sense), but I still enjoyed her tremendously. Maybe that's because I always thought that Liv Tyler had great potential, and was overjoyed to see her actually act. I thought the movie needed the extra oomph that she provided.

[Lyliac]

hay, the_master_of_puppets, can i ask you something? don't you have a post on how annoying it is to have people complaining? no offense. btw, i think the most debated/talked about topics are arwen, and how hott orlando bloom is.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

My favor runs towards Elijah myself (always a sucker for the wistful types), but I do see the Orlando appeal...<P>I think Liv did a wonderful job with a poorly thought-out role. She managed to be etheral without being cold or distant. It could be that when the Director's cut is released in November we'll see more explanation. PJ did say there would be more character development in the LP. Her role needs it.

[dragongirlG]

I liked Arwen in the movie as well as in the books...the romance was pretty necessary; it softened up the movie a bit so it didn't look like just an action movie, plus it made Rivendell look like a really pretty place. I think Liv Tyler did a good job too, and that Arwen's role expansion was necessary...it added to the movie, and introduced Arwen as Aragorn's lover, so that her marriage to him in the third film would make more sense to the audience.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Ebert (of the former Siskel-sp? & Ebert) had a very good point in his review of the movie. <P>He liked the movie, but was puzzled because it didn't quite seem like the books he remembered. He went back and paged through the LotR, and said, sure enough, the movie is very different from the books, the main focus is moved off the hobbits to the elves and men and so forth. <BR>He's right. <P>He went on to say that the kind of story the books are, meandering through middle earth, is probably impossible to do in a movie. <BR>He's right about that, too.<P>So I don't disagree with you D-Girl, the increased role of Arwen is necessary since the focus Is placed more on the elves and men and greater folk of Middle Earth. <P>But Arwen's role is not convincingly written, though Liv's soft touch with the acting makes the best of it.<P>What's wrong with the portrayal of Arwen?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><BR><LI>The poorly timed entrance. You do not introduce a romance at a moment when the audience is distracted with the injury of a main character. Takes attention away and diminishes the impact of both.<BR><LI>The sword at Aragorn's throat. I've gone into this at length in my previous posts so I won't belabor the point. It's amateurish, bravado, and it rings false. Likewise her words at Bruinen.<BR><LI>The lack of explanation why someone so important yet so poorly trained with a sword (all the others are well-trained) is out wandering the woods. A soldier (such as Glorfindel or Legolas) would require no explanation. But that something she's clearly not.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have no problem with a convincing change in Arwen's role. PJ just didn't throughly think it through, leaving lots of holes and unanswerable questions.<p>[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[the_master_of_puppets]

god arwens character is alot more comlicated than i at first thought.....lol. so much 2 read! argh

[Glenethor]

I think she had around 5 minutes in the movie. Maybe a couple of minutes more, but if I remember correctly, the dialogue in Rivendell is almost straight out of one of the appendices of RoTK. That was a valid move, imo.<P>As for her crying over Frodo, she would know Bilbo, wouldn't she? 'Course she would. So, she'd know about Frodo from him. She'd know he was carrying the Ring, and that if he fell into the wraith world, all might be lost.<P>I am of two minds about this though: I don't mind the scene in Rivendell, but I occasionally wince at her 'If you want him come and claim him' line. As for why Legolas wasn't substituted for Glorfindel, I suspect that PJ didn't want to be seen to imitate Bakshi's changes to the book.<P>It comes back to what was done with Frodo's character: I am not exactly thrilled with the fact that he backs away from the Witch-King in terror at Weathertop (although it is perfectly logical. Who here would stand up to that? The soldiers of Gondor could not withstand him, how would a halfling do so?) or that he didn't resist the Nine at the Fjord. I wanted to hear the Nazgul taunting him: "Come back! To Mordor we will take you!" And see Frodo resist...<P>Anyway as a hetero male, I must add that I find Arwen aesthetically pleasing to look at...I'd face the hordes of Mordor for her!<BR>

[ElanorGamgee]

While I don't hate Arwen's role in the movie, I dislike the way the producers went out of their way to make her strong and formidable. It was kind of corney. I saw the movie before reading the books, and I like the scene at the Ford much better in the book than the movie. I really wish that Frodo would have stood up to the Nazgûl in the movie. In my opinion, that's one of his best speeches in <i>The Lord of the Rings</i>.

[Joy]

Though I agree that having Arwen put a sword to Aragorn's throat and the line about a Ranger caught off guard was way off, I think that having her there is plausible.<P>When she calls for the waters of the Misty Mountains to come, we she it happen in real time. She knew that this is what she was going to do, so that is why they have her say "If you want him, come and claim him." <P>If I was the producer, I would have had Glorfindel come and give his horse to Frodo. Then have Frodo say his lines, "By Elbereth and Lùthien the Fair, you will have neither the Ring nor me!" <P>Then cut to Rivendell, have Elrond and Gandalf there. Elrod calls for the water to come, then cut back to Bruien.<P>As for Arwen, have the lines the same with Aragorn, for they are in the apendix.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Joy, I'd have to agree with you. <BR>If Arwen hadn't proven how utterly inept she was with that weapon when she poked it at her friends - for those who don't read further up, no competent swordsman, archer, whatever Ever does such a thing. And we know that, deep down, when we see this cornpone, because it's common sense - anyways, without that proof of idiotic bravado and ineptitude, her credibility would not have been decimated the first moment she appeared on screen. <P>It still seems improbable she would have found them, especially on horseback. PJ does not have Tolkien's woodcraft. The only reason Glorfindel found them was because they were forced to use the road. <P>But if we removed that ludicrous moment with the sword, and she caught up with them on the road as Glorfindel did, then that line at Bruinen would have merely been irredeemable and emasculating to Frodo.

[Maikadilwen]

Yay, WE WANT GLORFINDEL!!!!! Need I say more????