Arwen is Xenaelf?

[Curufinwe]

You insult my intelligence and then question my creditials? We have an honest disagreement thats all. I was hoping for an exhange of ideas which I offered.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
You insult my intelligence and then question my creditials? We have an honest disagreement thats all. I was hoping for an exhange of ideas which I offered.

I questioned your creditials AFTER your "my lad" comment and the "Jersey swamp" snide comment. BEFORE that we were discussing Arwen. After your condescending attitude - you made it personal.

That is all - we will now continue to discuss Xena-Arwen and the BUTCHERED Flight to the Ford scene.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
He backed off ONLY because of complaints once FotR came out, otherwise she would have gone to Helms Deep.

Small correction. The complaints came before FotR was released. The changes were made before FotR was released.

[Curufinwe]

Oh and if you wanted anyone to hate you for making a snide comment about New Jersey - you picked the right person.

I thought the legend of the Jersey devil originated in the swamps you really need to relax nothing was aimed at you personally. I called you lad becauase I suspect that you are less than half my age.

Sam is powerful because of his love and friendship for Frodo. But Sam did NOT go through the same turmoil that Frodo did. Frodo had the Ring for years and years, Sam only had it for a couple of days. The two aren't comparable in that respect.

but Frodo wavered in the end and failed to do what he had come to do. Whether or not Sam could have resisted at the last we will never know of course. However, Sam never failed in either his devotion to his Master or to the task appointed to him.

The thing is - this is where people get confused - there was NO interpretation of the scene on Jackson's part, he just CHANGED it. Interpretation of the scene would include charcater movement, inflection of voice, things of that nature - it does NOT include changing the scene to the point it is completely unrecognizable.

So you didnt know where she was taking Frodo or what scene it corresponded to in the literature even as you constantly refer to it as "The Flight to the Ford". The entire film is interpretation that is what adaption is. He has creative license to alter the plot in any way he decides. What you see on the screen is Jackson's vision of Middle-Earth - not Tolkien's. If you want the book it is always there to read.

He isn't unconsious and unable to move like he is in the movie. I'm glad you can pick the parts, and highligh the lines that indicate the weakness, but as was repeatedly stated in the book, even a great man would have succumbed to the morgul blade far quicker than Frodo did.

I know I can't believe I actually cited passages from the source material to support my argument. I can be such a scholar sometimes.

I disagree. The urge to put on the Ring, the Ring wanting to get back to it's master is far more powerful than the Barrow Wights. His ulitmate defiance against the Black Riders is much more important and much stronger than that scene.

Fair enough - however, Gandalf did consider that to be "Perhaps the most dangerous moment of all."

[The Gaffer]

Personally, I have no problem with "Xena-elf" per se. I can see why her character was changed in that way and, at the Ford, the hairs on my neck were standing on end. I agree with some of the foregoing in that the reason it gets people riled up is because of how it impacts on Frodo.

What I do have a problem with is badly done changes, which would apply to the chase sequence. IMHO it also applies to Frodo's character, which was a disappointment in FOTR.

However, I agree with you in that it's really Sam's story; I have to say that Sean Astin's performance has added the most to my conception of the role of the character from the book.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
I thought the legend of the Jersey devil originated in the swamps you really need to relax nothing was aimed at you personally. I called you lad becauase I suspect that you are less than half my age.

No they did not originate in the swamps of New Jersey and I do not believe you thought they did. The Jersey Devil was "born" in Leeds Point, just north of Atantic City and resides in the Pine Barrens. The wetlands are in northern New Jersey.

As for the "my lad" comment. It doesn't matter if you thought I was 8 years old, it's a condescending way of putting someone's opinions and arguments down. As it is - you have no idea how old I am, and even if I was 8 years old, I would not put up with someone calling me lad.

but Frodo wavered in the end and failed to do what he had come to do. Whether or not Sam could have resisted at the last we will never know of course. However, Sam never failed in either his devotion to his Master or to the task appointed to him.

Sam also never had to carry the Ring very long. Frodo had it for close to 20 years and had repeatedly used it. It's the power of the Ring which was slowly corrupting him.

So you didnt know where she was taking Frodo or what scene it corresponded to in the literature even as you constantly refer to it as "The Flight to the Ford". The entire film is interpretation that is what adaption is. He has creative license to alter the plot in any way he decides. What you see on the screen is Jackson's vision of Middle-Earth - not Tolkien's. If you want the book it is always there to read.

No, you DO know it is Flight to the Ford, because that is the chapter that that scene corresponds to. Therefore calling it Flight to the Ford is LOGICAL. Yeah - he had creative license to change it and he changed it into a crap film. That however is NOT interpretation. Interpretation was how he changed Frodo and Sams relationship, or the way he changed Gollum.

I know I can't believe I actually cited passages from the source material to support my argument. I can be such a scholar sometimes.

Oh - you sure you're a professor? I would expect less sarcasm and more understanding of what I was getting at. Your quotes did NOT support what you were trying to prove, which was that Frodo was a weak character and Arwen took nothing away from him. You took things out of context and did NOT give the full picture. Do you allow your students to only quote lines that indicate their argument, while ignoring everything else that contradicts it? The quotes only gave HALF the picture. Of course he collapsed in the end, but he defied and stood up to the Black Riders, which is a hell of a lot more than he did in the movie.

Fair enough - however, Gandalf did consider that to be "Perhaps the most dangerous moment of all."

yeah - it was, but that doesn't mean that Frodo was weak. He resisted to the very last and he still did not go back over river. Any lesser character would have. The Frodo in the movie couldn't even lift up his head.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
However, I agree with you in that it's really Sam's story; I have to say that Sean Astin's performance has added the most to my conception of the role of the character from the book.

The story is about friendship, whether it is Pippin and Merry, Frodo and Sam or Legolas and Gimli. It's about friendship being able to conquer all and the importance of friendship and sticking by your friends.

Sam just plays out the central theme of the books and demonstrates the central point the strongest.

[Nurvingiel]

People who call Arwen Xena-elf or Xenarwen think one or more of the following things:
1) Liv Tyler is not well cast in this role. Her acting throughout the entire movie is sub-par.
2) Arwen's character is so far removed from the book that when you poke fun at her character, you are in no way mocking Tolkien's work. That just makes it easier.
3) A ridiculous story arc was created around Arwen's character, involving her being a warrior who catches Aragorn off guard.
4) Is involved in contrived, boring, sappy love scenes, including contributing the that amazingly stupid warg-battle-falling-off-cliff scene in The Two Towers.
5) Her pointless story arc wasted time in the movie that could have been used to film the Scouring of the Shire, or at least wrap up Saruman's story arc in some reasonable way.


For me, I think all those things, and 5 is the biggest. Arwen is just asking to be made fun of. She's not canon, wastes time, and delivers cheesy lines since, of course, none of them were in the book (or were hers in the book).

Xena-elf sums up the dissatisfaction felt by fans who did not wish for Tolkien's works to be turned into a run-of-the-mill Hollywood blockbuster. (As I've said before, it's a good action movie, but it's still just an action movie.)

Besides, "Xena-elf" is funny. Humour helps alleviate pain. It remedies the pain of watching Arwen.

Possibly this hilarious site is the origin of the whole Xena-elf thing.
The Mouth of Sauron

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel

3) A ridiculous story arc was created around Arwen's character, involving her being a warrior who catches Aragorn off guard.

Funny thing how the women in Aragorn's life all seem to end up holding a sword to his throat.

[Wayfarer]

yeah - it was, but that doesn't mean that Frodo was weak. He resisted to the very last and he still did not go back over river. Any lesser character would have. The Frodo in the movie couldn't even lift up his head.

And the change is even more disgusting when you look at what they were respectively up against.
When book- Frodo faced down the Nazgul, it was shortly after the reader has been told (through Galdor) that 'few even in rivendell could ride openly against the nine'- and here Frodo is facing them down, alone, anf still standing defiant.
When film-frodo faces the Nazgul it is shortly after the moviegoers have the treat of watching Aragorn single-handedly defeat half of them in combat, without even breaking a sweat. Yet he's still too weak to do so much as lift his head.

Arwen, on the other hand, fights off the Nazgul all by herself, thus taking the place of A Wizard, two Elf Lord, a Ranger, and three Hobbits.

So, not /only/ does Arwen waste film time with her gratuitous appearences, she weakens:

Frodo, by taking away his most courageous scene and replacing it with cheap , crappy hollywoodisms.
Aragorn, by showing that she can out-ranger, out-heal, out-ride him, and acting as though she could probably out fight-him.
Gandalf, by defeating the Assembled Nine when he has trouble not being killed by four of them, and by taking away his 'special addition' to the riptide of the bruinen.
Elrond, by making the flood of the bruinen her own magic rather than his.
Glorfndel, by taking his place entirely.
The hobbits, by doing the ford scene all by herself rather than with their (small) assistance as Galdor did.

Let me add to this:

The fact that her lines were horribly written, trite, overblown, and delivered badly.
The fact that the actress chosen is... a ****.
The fact that the way in which she is depicted is completely the opposite of what elves are generally like.

[Golums_fan#6]

Arwen is totally one of the coolest charecters in LOTR.
But I don't think she was really meant to be a swordy elf.

[Curufinwe]

No they did not originate in the swamps of New Jersey and I do not believe you thought they did. The Jersey Devil was "born" in Leeds Point, just north of Atantic City and resides in the Pine Barrens. The wetlands are in northern New Jersey

It is quite impossible to have a debate with anyone who doubts your own word. It was a thowaway line and I meant no offense by it. I also apogize for calling you lad if you believe it to be offensive, again that was not my intent. My intent all along has been to discuss the term XenaArwen; Find its roots and question the assumptions the name evokes. Thanks for the little bit of trivia however.

Oh - you sure you're a professor? I would expect less sarcasm and more understanding of what I was getting at. Your quotes did NOT support what you were trying to prove, which was that Frodo was a weak character and Arwen took nothing away from him. You took things out of context and did NOT give the full picture. Do you allow your students to only quote lines that indicate their argument, while ignoring everything else that contradicts it? The quotes only gave HALF the picture. Of course he collapsed in the end, but he defied and stood up to the Black Riders, which is a hell of a lot more than he did in the movie

Questioning my life's work again eh? I'm actually teaching an online course on Beowulf in the spring I would happily let you sit in on the course if you like. I presented the entire confrontation, the source material is right there in front of your nose. I included the passages of Frodo's defiance and deconstructed the scene as a whole. He did defy the black riders, he said three lines and then collapsed. This is clearly omitted in the film but - as the text indicates - he was sucumbing to the wound and had no strength in the end to resist - which is demonstrated in the picture. Jackson's picture is not a snapshot of the text exactly, but he did not invent Frodo's state either. I never said Frodo is a weak character. Frodo is an exceptionally strong character who is wounded by a power beyond which is beyond him. Oh and the sarcasm that was most clearly not intended to be taken seriously. You need not take everything personally. Also and finally I did not and will not claim this scene was well done, but I don't believe it was butchered or destroyed or etc. And I don't believe Arwen even remotely resembles Xena.

Thanks Nurvingiel for addressing the topic your points are well taken and articulated. I'm not quite sure I would call Arwen not "canon" if you speaking of the literature since she features prominently in "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" in Appendix A I believe it was.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
It is quite impossible to have a debate with anyone who doubts your own word. It was a thowaway line and I meant no offense by it. I also apogize for calling you lad if you believe it to be offensive, again that was not my intent.

Apology accepted.

Thanks for the little bit of trivia however.

You're welcome.

Questioning my life's work again eh?

I wasn't questioning your life's work - just making observations by the condescending and snide attitude of your various posts.

I'm actually teaching an online course on Beowulf in the spring I would happily let you sit in on the course if you like.

I will consider it, that you for the offer.

I presented the entire confrontation, the source material is right there in front of your nose. I included the passages of Frodo's defiance and deconstructed the scene as a whole. He did defy the black riders, he said three lines and then collapsed.

He didn't just collapse. As has been demonstrated by various people, he withstood them longe than anyone felt would be possible, including Gandalf.

This is clearly omitted in the film but - as the text indicates - he was sucumbing to the wound and had no strength in the end to resist - which is demonstrated in the picture. Jackson's picture is not a snapshot of the text exactly, but he did not invent Frodo's state either.

he did invent Frodo's state or at the very least EXAGERATED it. Frodo rode BY HIMSELF. He was able to lift his head. In the movie he is a sack of potatoes with Arwen protecting him.

I never said Frodo is a weak character. Frodo is an exceptionally strong character who is wounded by a power beyond which is beyond him.

Jackson weakedn his character in the movie, I had people who hadn't read the books saying, why was Frodo given the Ring? They also made repeated statements that Boromir should have been given the Ring.

Oh and the sarcasm that was most clearly not intended to be taken seriously. You need not take everything personally.

Well if you stopped making personal comments, and stopped assuming that people were younger than you and calling them "lad" - maybe I wouldn't take them personal.

Also and finally I did not and will not claim this scene was well done, but I don't believe it was butchered or destroyed or etc. And I don't believe Arwen even remotely resembles Xena.

Well then that is where I and a bunch of others disagree with you.

I'm not quite sure I would call Arwen not "canon" if you speaking of the literature since she features prominently in "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" in Appendix A I believe it was.

Jackson twisted her character and made her into something she isn't. Jackson's changes wasted time and reduced LotR into a typical Hollywood action film. He has been spending FAR too much time on the romance of Arwen and Aragorn and has made the story revolve around Aragorn and not Frodo and the Ring.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Golums_fan#6
Arwen is totally one of the coolest charecters in LOTR.
But I don't think she was really meant to be a swordy elf.

See, even someone who actually likes Arwen doesn't feel she was meant to a warrior. I am either annoyed or bored out of my skull when Arwen is on screen, but we do agree on that point. And, welcome to the Moot.

This is completely true, since she was not a warrior in the book. Being a warrior is not the only way to contribute in Middle-earth, a point I feel is lost on Jackson.

[jerseydevil]

I figured I'd post these threads here, which talk about Arwen...

Arwen in the Movie, How did you feel about her?
The worst change in FOTR
Uh-oh, Arwen sticking her nose in again...
Ford Scene, olsonm style...well, sorta

The worst change in FotR thread revolved around Arwen.

[Elfhelm]

I disagree. Women who only stay home sewing banners do not make good characters for fantasy adventures, whether in movies or in books. The great women of LotR were Eowyn and Galadriel. Changing one of them would have been inexcusable. Changing Arwen was necessary because she is a boring character as written.

p.s. Anyone who thinks writers never make mistakes should definitely stay out of the publishing business.

[Nurvingiel]

Arwen wasn't a main character in the books, so who cares if she doesn't feature in the movie? (That was a rhetorical question, by the way.)

Eowyn and Galadriel are the great women characters, so Arwen's trumped up story arc isn't necessary.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I disagree. Women who only stay home sewing banners do not make good characters for fantasy adventures, whether in movies or in books. The great women of LotR were Eowyn and Galadriel. Changing one of them would have been inexcusable. Changing Arwen was necessary because she is a boring character as written.

p.s. Anyone who thinks writers never make mistakes should definitely stay out of the publishing business.

No Tolkien was making a HISTORICALLY ACCURATE book. There were few women during the middle ages, which would be the equivalient of when Lord of the Rings took place, who were powerful like that. There were some and as has been mentioned, that is why there is Eowyn and Galadriel. The only reason why Arwen is hyped out is for PC and feminist reasons. It was to draw women into the theater.

As has been pointed out - Arwen wasn't a main character and didn't have to be in the movies. Her sewing banners for Aragorn - is what the MAJORITY of women did at that time.

[Elfhelm]

Nurv, granted... but let me ask a few questions.

Do you think a fantasy movie with no love interest can be made in the current movie industry climate?

If so, would anyone go? Would you?

If not, and I don't think so, should they make the first two movies on the promise that there is a love story in the third?

Am I the only one who thought Aragorn should have gone for Eowyn?

How many extra elves should be named? Should Glorfindel have been used once and discarded?

Can a lone hobbit with a nazgul blade embedded in his shoulder truly outrun all nine riders?

And then I have a lot more opinions on this matter, if you don't mind:

First of all, true Tolkien fans recognize Luthien, not Xena, in the changes to Arwen's character. Xena wears a leather miniskirt based on Roman Legion armor; Luthien and Arwen wear beautiful dresses. Xena has no magic powers; Luthien and Arwen use their voices to enchant (that's what the background singing during Arwen scenes is supposed to represent). Xena screams keee-ahs and cuts off a lot of heads, does flying flips in her Roman thingy while still retaining a semblance of modesty, and throws some sort of decapitating discus for long range attacks; Luthien and Arwen have no more than simple elvish blades, and rarely use them. Xena has no clash with her father; Luthien and Arwen are forced to choose between their father's wishes and the men they love. And the biggest difference between Xena and Luthien is that Xena would have fought the riders, not run away. But this is Tolkien and that's not possible here.

Believe me, I could go on. It is a literary device called allusion. In order to create a love interest, they superimposed the Beren and Luthien dilemmas onto the Aragorn and Arwen story. Any fan can see that. To call it "Xena imitation" is balderdash. A Xena fan would be quick to see through it, as would a true Tolkien fan.

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The only reason why Arwen is hyped out is for PC and feminist reasons. It was to draw women into the theater.

As has been pointed out - Arwen wasn't a main character and didn't have to be in the movies. Her sewing banners for Aragorn - is what the MAJORITY of women did at that time.

Eleanor of Aquitaine 'nuff said?

The "majority of women", like the majority of men in feudal times, do not make interesting subjects for a fantasy movie. Who cares what the common experience was like? We want the unusual and the strange!