Arwen

D

Dear Ava

New member
Why, Peter Jackson, why?

You've created a brilliant adaptation of Lord of the Rings, telling the epic story across three very watchable films. There's action, suspense, drama -- and a love story.

Now the trouble is, this love story was an incredibly minor part of the original tale. Hell, the author didn't even think it important enough to stick it in the main text, and put most of it in the appendix. To cut down LoTR into three reasonable length films requires cutting out large parts of the story (ask a moviegoer who Tom Bombadil is), so why shove in something that simply wasn't there to begin with?

And why then compound this mistake by changing parts of the story to give the female love interest a bigger part?

For example, it's not Arwen but a male elf (Glorfindel, a son of Elrond) who rides out from Rivendell to save Frodo, Strider et al in the middle of Fellowship (and it's the combined power of Elrond and Gandalf that whips up the river to stop the Black Riders following, not just Arwen as implied in the film). And though I haven't read the book for a couple of years, I'm pretty sure that Arwen doesn't appear in the Two Towers at any point whatsoever. In fact, Aragorn has his eye on someone else: a woman from Rohan named Eowyn.

So tell us Peter, why did you do it? Could it have anything to do with the lead actress -- and the only real 'name' appearing in LoTR -- needing a designated amount of screen time?

Whatever the reason, it's a crying shame that you decided you had to change -- not edit, but actually change -- the source material. Everything else follows the book so closely, why not this?
 
I happen to be extremely relieved at the exclusion of Tom Bombadil. Firstly, there would have been a glut of songs added, and secondly, he is pretty useless in terms of the main story.

As for Arwen, I hadn't thought about there being a certain amount of screen appearance in her contract. I rather thought it was a need for strong female characters. These days, it's kick-ass females that people seem to want to watch (Buffy, Xena and so on and on) and Lord of the Rings has none. None of the main characters are female and all the real work is left to the men. And hobbits.

That was my reasoning, anyway. I think it was a rather minor change, myself, and it wasn't like Mr. Jackson completely made something up from nothing.
 
I believe that Arwen rescued Frodo rather than Glorfindel due to Peter Jackson's desire to streamline the story, and avoid intoducing too many characters who would play a part then disappear.

The same reason that the Duneidin and Elrond's sons are missing in ROTK.

The best place I know of to look for information would be the discussion boarRAB for the three films on the IMdb.
 
In the original animated version of the book, by Ralph Bakshi, Glorfindel was replaced by Legolas. When you think about it, Glorfindel serves no other purpose than to provide Frodo with a horse, so replacing him is a sensible option. Also, wounded as he is, there is no way that Frodo could outride the Nazgul to the ford - which is something Tolkien should have thought of. Jackson's decision to increase the role of Arwen was the correct one, in my opinion. It adRAB an extra dimension to the story and really shows, largely, what Arwen would have experienced anyway. Much of it is implied in the text.

Another departure, I believe, is when Faramir takes Frodo, Sam and Gollum to Osgiliath and we have the flashback of Boromir being sent to Rivendell (extended version only). If I remember rightly, this does not occur in the book at all - yet it shows Faramir suffering the same temptation as his brother and overcoming it. A masterstoke of film making - make up a totally new scene to encapsulate what the book takes ages to explain.
 
I think i am the only person to have come away disappointed after seeing the films. Admittedly i have still to see the third one (don't worry i will).

I am disappointed because after reading the book we all have different interpretations of the text. I was upset that Peter Jackson had added a comic value to the character of Gimli.

I think what we have to credit Peter Jackon with is the creation of three highly entertaining films. Personally i think other directors would and could have done a better job of recreating the novel, but they haven't.

It is always difficult to recreate a novel on the big screen, and going back to interpretation this ultimately is the reason why. People will always have different opinions.
 
You would have been moaning if it had been done as well as bad taste LOL

The films cant be be the book, it would have run for another 6 films to fit everything in, enjoy the films for the truly amazing works that they are, not what they should have been.
 
Yes, yes, yes, we all know who originally saved Frodo however, Peter Jackson felt that by having a strong female part, it would appeal to a bigger market (the more who see, the more to talk about it, the more popular it is). I am a major LOTR fan (yes, my father named me after the character) and read all the books time and time again and yet I didn't feel that this minor detail in away took away from Tolkiens original books. It seems to me that you are one of these LOTR nerRAB that is looking for anything to pull P.Jackson on but hey, the guy brought the greatest story ever told to the big screen for us all to enjoy and made a bloody excellent job of it. Stop nit-picking.
 
Erm... Ian McKellen? Ian Holm? Bloody big names if you ask me.

And as for including Arwen, but not for example Tom Bombadil. Well, whilst Tom was probably my favorite character in the book, he just wouldn't appeal to mainstream moviegoers. Whereas a character like Arwen would.

And, lets face it, LOTR isn't classic literature (well, yet anyway) and is open to interpretation. I could see people being dissapointed if stories to Shakespeare/Elliot/Austen/Brontes/Hardy etc being changed, as they have had a profound effect on society. Tolkien wrtoe good stories, but the lives he affected through his writing are few and far between.

And, if you really don't like the films, well, don't watch them. You could always read the book. Or discover new books and films. Or do one of many other things.
 
Surely that's where Eowyn should have came in.. She's a much more interesting character in the book anyway. Jackson left out quite a lot regarding how she ended up, I mean very few people who went to see the movie and hadn't read the book grasped that she married Faramir. I think if they wanted to increase the role of a female character, IMO it should've been Eowyn's..
 
I'm inclined to agree. "Why, Peter Jackson, why?" ;)

Call me racist if you like, but elves just get on my nerves. Do we really need another powerful female elven figure? We've already got Galadriel. It's about time the human women got a little glory, isn't it? :D
 
If truth be told im glad that Tom Bombadil didnt make it into the movie because ive always thought of his singing as being as gay as leopard skin pants, and in a movie that tries to take the fantasy genre seriously it would have been a major setback(i feel) to have included him in the film.
there are lots of other minor quibbles that the Tolkienistas pick up on like nasty rashes, all Jackson was doing was making an adaptation of the books not filming the books themselves.
 
For goodness sake, i'm sick of debating this. A mate from a tolkien board has answered this pretty well, so I'll paste it here. (sorry, Shai xx)

''some of you are being too hard on PJ for Arwen's role in the movies. While she technically doesn't return to the story until the end of ROTK, you must remember that is in the Appendix of the book. It relates events that happened during TTT and ROTK, in essence recapping what has happened in her life. I think Tolkien may have done this because he thought it would get too confusing jumping from Mordor to Rohan to Minas Tirith and to Rivendell. It would have given the story, in literary form, a somewhat off-kilter feel. In translating the book to movie screenplay, PJ is obligated to incorporate Arwen's story into the actual storyline where it fits in. While the question of the amplification of her role is certainly a valid debate, I believe PJ is simply being a responsible director. An hour and a half of flashbacks and voiceovers at the end of ROTK to cover what happens in Appendix A of the book is certainly not a feasible alternative.''
 
I heartily agree. There was no need to develop Arwen's character as much as that, and then scale down Eowyn's. I always preferred Eowyn when reading the books. I do think PJ wanted a strong female lead, but Arwen was not the way to go. It just looked like Liv Tyler permanently being sad with large eyes about to cry :eek: . If glamour's what you want, then try a different movie. These films are set in a world going through dark times. It's about courage and frienRABhip, alliances and war - NOT glamour :(

Eowyn on the other hand was right in the middle, getting down and dirty by wanting to wield a weapon and go to war to fight for her people and her land. She challenged the beliefs in those times that women should stay at home and look after people. She was a fighter and an inspiration and SHE is the strong female lead :)
 
Yes, but she is in FOTR and ROTK, so her omission in the middle segment would have just seemed like she didnt exsist, and people need reminding why Aragorn couldn't just run off with Eowyn.
 
Back
Top