Arwen is Xenaelf?

[Bacchus]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
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.

I disagree that Arwen singlehandedly destroyed so many characters by her mere presence.
Frodo-OK, so Frodo loses a couple of lines here. Big deal. In both the book and the movie, the key event involving Frodo's characterization is not the futile defiance at the Ford, but rather the considered decision to accept the burden of the Ring at the Council. The fact that he could have refused the burden but did not is far more telling of his bravery than screaming defiance to the Nazgul.
Aragorn-I make counterargument by appealing to the Beren and Luthien story. The fact that Luthien has greater gifts than Beren does not in any way lessen Beren's strength. Rather, the fact that a being of such higher grace loves him is a subtle indication of Beren's (and Aragorn's) unseen qualities.
Gandalf-First a factual correction-Gandalf faced all Nine at Weathertop. Second, although it is not explicitly spelled out that Gandalf did the horses in the flood, it is also not explicitly stated that he did not do so.
Elrond-claiming that the powers of the daughter weaken the powers of the father is an odd method of argumentation
Glorfindel-Why introduce a character who is never to be seen again?
The hobbits-their role at the Ford is minimal at best

Finally, how is Arwen's portrayal completely the opposite of 'real' Elves? as portrayed in "The Hobbit" perhaps.

[Elfhelm]

Did Wayfarer actually called Liv a four-letter word? Where's Sister Golden Hair?!!!! I am shocked! I thought Wayfarer's religion taught "let him who has not sinned cast the first stone". Or am I confusing people who call themselves Christians with those who follow the teachings of Jesus!?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Eleanor of Aquitaine 'nuff said?

I am aware of Elanor of Aquataine, I do own and have read several times "A History of the Plantagenets". I studied Henry II, whose reign is covered in The Conquering Family, which is the first out of the 4 volumes. There was also, if you go back one generation you will see Matilda, as I have repeatedly stated on this board. That still does not indicate thet were the norm. 'nuff said?

By the way - I also took a senior level British History course in college when I was just a freshman.

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!

And Lord of the Rings didn't have enough of that already 0 he had to givew Arwen a blown up part? Give me a break. That is the worst argument I have EVER heard. As I said repeatedly - jackson dumbed down the movies, your statement indicates that this is true.

[Wayfarer]

Perhaps you can't make a fantasy movie without a love interest- although I would beg to differ on that-but the Lord of the Rings is a story with many romantic subplots. Sam and Rosy, Aragorn and Arwen, Faramir and Eowen. But those stories, although each is beautiful in it's own way, do not make or break the tale. They have their place, but they are not the greatest part of the work.

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

Now, that's a common mistake made by shallow and foolish people. (IMNSHO)

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

You mean like Haldir was?

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

Clearly he can, on an elvish horse.

true Tolkien fans recognize Luthien, not Xena

I do not see Xena in PJ's Arwen, but you are a fool if you think she in any way resembles Luthien. She is a cheap, pathetic copy, made by someone with no understanding of real strength and greatness. Luthien had no need for a sword, she had no need for the kind martial strength that PJ's version of Arwen displays because she was strong enough, in herself, to stand face to face with Satan and defy him. Liv Tyler's character is nothing compared to her.

[Elfhelm]

Calling something "the worst argument I have ever heard" is not a refutation, it is an unthinking dismissal. The fact is, they have plenty of "ordinary" people living in the Shire.

And it's Sam's quest, anyway. Need I remind you all that there is no Rosie scene at the beginning of the book, but I don't hear complaints about it in the movie.

jerseydevil, you did not address even ONE question I asked. Do you really think a fantasy movie can be made with no love interest? Would anyone but die-hard Tolkien fans go to a Lord of the Rings movie that didn't include a love interest for Aragorn?

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
I do not see Xena in PJ's Arwen, but you are a fool if you think she in any way resembles Luthien.

Name calling, again?

And exactly what four-letter word did they ghost out that you called Liv Tyler? eh? Did you impune her fidelity to her husband? Or did you cast aspersions on her out-of-wedlock birth?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Bacchus
I disagree that Arwen singlehandedly destroyed so many characters by her mere presence.

I agree with Wayfarer.

Aragorn-I make counterargument by appealing to the Beren and Luthien story. The fact that Luthien has greater gifts than Beren does not in any way lessen Beren's strength. Rather, the fact that a being of such higher grace loves him is a subtle indication of Beren's (and Aragorn's) unseen qualities.

No it's not the same, because Aragorn was a RANGER. He was supposed to be very familiar with his surroundings. It did weaken his character in that regard. But the biggest thing that weakened him was all that crap about being afraid of his heritage - such as the Narsil scene.

Gandalf-First a factual correction-Gandalf faced all Nine at Weathertop.
Second, although it is not explicitly spelled out that Gandalf did the horses in the flood, it is also not explicitly stated that he did not do so.

First the black riders. It doesn't state explectedly as to whether all nine were there or not. It says...

"...The Captain then sent some eastward straight across country, and he himself with the rest rose along the rode in great wrath.

I galloped to Weathertop like a gale, and reached it before sundown on my second day from Bree - and they were there before me...

...It was impossible to find you, Frodo, in the wilderness, it would have been folly to try with all the Nine at my heels.

The thing is, the captain splits up the forces, Gandalf KNOWS this and heads for Weathertop. It never says how many confront him on Weathertop, I doubt all of them gave up the hunt for Frodo and the Ring and only came together later. But none of this is actually spelt out there.

I think hoever you need to read the book again. It is explicitily stated in the book, by Gandalf himself that he created the horses.

"...If I may so , I added a few touches of my own: you may have not have noticed, but some of the waves took the form of great white horses with shining white riders;..."

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm

Calling something "the worst argument I have ever heard" is not a refutation, it is an unthinking dismissal. The fact is, they have plenty of "ordinary" people living in the Shire.

That doesn't mean Jackson had to change Arwen the way he did. And it wasn't a dismissal. I just don't think your argument held any water.

And it's Sam's quest, anyway. Need I remind you all that there is no Rosie scene at the beginning of the book, but I don't hear complaints about it in the movie.

Rosie did not follow Sam to weathertop and protect him either and defy the Black Riders.

jerseydevil, you did not address even ONE question I asked. Do you really think a fantasy movie can be made with no love interest? Would anyone but die-hard Tolkien fans go to a Lord of the Rings movie that didn't include a love interest for Aragorn?

Where did I even say that the film should not include scenes showing the love between Aragorn and Arwen? I thought this was aobut Xena-Elf. If you bother reading my posts - you will see that I repeatedly say that I do not have a problem with more of the love between Aragorn and Arwen being shown - I just have a problem with the way Jackson did it.

[Sister Golden Hair]

The problem with the love interest is that it overshadows the real story. Frodo and the quest to destroy the Ring is now secondary.

It seems to me that this thread is going to be another flame fest. I wish people would take what I am saying seriously. I hate closing threads, but, I will close every thread in this forum that is made and does not abide by the rules layed down. There will be no more flame fests.

Closing.