Arwen vs Glorfindel

[Noldori]

Okay... Arwen does not ride Asfaloth or bring Frodo to Rivendell. What the heck was up with Jackson taking out Glorfindel?

[inked]

Slicing and dicing to make the time limits, most likely. But then there's the whole enchilada about political correctness and sensibilities to the distaff side which had to be embraced allegedly, too. Mainly time constraints, like for Tom Bombadil, I think.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

It was because of the modern feminist viewpoints of the screenwriters. No other reason.

[shesabrandybuck]

Liv Tyler didn't have enough parts.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Its the nature of the Genre, in movies you do not have as much time for character develeopment as you do in books, and you need to consolidate the number and functions of charactors.

[Varokhâr]

Pretty much what everyone else has said.

Kowtowing to feminist trends, making alterations to fit time constraints, giving Liv enough screen time to placate her, etc - I believe all of that played a role in what was finally seen on film.

[Origins]

Originally Posted by Lefty Scaevola

Its the nature of the Genre, in movies you do not have as much time for character develeopment as you do in books, and you need to consolidate the number and functions of charactors.

Yes, Thats very much true. To suddenly introduce a character especially one as powerful as glorfindal and then have him not making another appearance throughout the movie it would leave people wondering what happened. It was a wise decision on the part of PJ for more efficient character progression.

[GrayMouser]

As I've said before, my reaction on first reading of Aragorn's wedding in the book was "Who the heck is she?"

Filling the character out more was necessary for the movie, and her "action figure" was a nod to our changed views on the role of women in adventures.

Far worse was sticking her into the later parts, with the "What- if I get married I could have a baby?" reaction- Elrond, you should have that talk with her a long time before- and the "her fate is tied to the Ring"- huh?

Though I did appreciate more respect being shown to the Sword That Was Broken- in the book it was reforged off-stage and just mentioned in passing.

[Ingwe]

Oye, even in the Battle for Middle Earth games, they made Glorfindel a push-over. Even Arwen was powerless in the game compared to most characters. The movies and especially the games didn't get much right, but at least the games included Glorfindel. In the movies they made Arwen look like an Elven chick who could get *$#@ done. Then from the second movie on, she was sort of the helpless damsel in distress. The whole "her fate and the ring's are one" thing was just so out of place. Not much was explained with that. It's just "hey, Aragorn's gonna be the king, except his girlfriend is all like messed up and *$@#, how convenient, now Aragorn is pwned." I didn't even see any other Elves flinching as the ring's power grew. If anything, people would just covet the ring more as it passed closer to its master and gained more power.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Origins

Yes, Thats very much true. To suddenly introduce a character especially one as powerful as glorfindal and then have him not making another appearance throughout the movie it would leave people wondering what happened. It was a wise decision on the part of PJ for more efficient character progression.

Well, that doesn't mean it necessarily had to be Arwen in this scene, nor did she have to be introduced by sneaking up on Aragorn with a sword to his neck!

Also, Jackson took Haldir and expanded his role, for example.

[Deagol]

Quite simply, there aren't enough chicks in the story and the most prominent one is just another warrior. Arwen's expanded role didn't really bother me much in the films, but it's true her character is inconsistent, which is just as well, because as an actress, Liv Tyler makes a fine piece of wood.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Deagol

Quite simply, there aren't enough chicks in the story and the most prominent one is just another warrior. Arwen's expanded role didn't really bother me much in the films, but it's true her character is inconsistent, which is just as well, because as an actress, Liv Tyler makes a fine piece of wood.

Notgoingtherenotgoingtherenotgoingthere...

[The last sane person]

Thenwhydidiyoupostinthethread?Thenwhydidiyoupostin thethread?Thenwhydidiyoupostinthethread?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Because it's so much more fun to just draw attention to an existing double entendre than to take it and run too far.

[Draken]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Because it's so much more fun to just draw attention to an existing double entendre than to take it and run too far.

Well if you hadn't I would have...

I don't understand the fuss about Arwen. There are too many cameos in LOTR to faithfully reproduce all in a film. Arwen is a useful character because she can be used to highlight the true differences between the physically similar Men and Elves, and also the difficulty her people have in finally abandoning Middle Earth. Plus her conversations with Aragorn provide insight to his heritage, backstory and reluctance to assert his claim to royalty.

How quaintly charming it is that some people cry "political correctness" and "kowtowing to feminist trends" in a role that makes great play of a woman who decides she can't be fulfilled until she's dutifully married, no matter what the personal sacrifice....

A more suitable candidate for "kowtowing" would be the willful shield-maiden who insists on joining the battle and gets the line "Fool, I am no man"... and she, you will find, is in then original text.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Draken

I don't understand the fuss about Arwen. There are too many cameos in LOTR to faithfully reproduce all in a film. Arwen is a useful character because she can be used to highlight the true differences between the physically similar Men and Elves, and also the difficulty her people have in finally abandoning Middle Earth. Plus her conversations with Aragorn provide insight to his heritage, backstory and reluctance to assert his claim to royalty.

Well, I have no great problem with giving Arwen an expanded role in general, but as the thread concerns how Arwen was used as a replacement for Glorfindel specifically, I see nothing about film that meant this scene had to be handled in this 'surprise the Ranger' manner, nor that Arwen had to ride with Frodo as well.

I find nothing 'un-cinematic' about Glorfindel's approach in the book actually, and making the character Arwen (if one must that is, in theory) does not mean the same approach could not have been used.


I don't find 'too many characters' (which is basically Jackson's own response here IIRC) very compelling outside of a general concern for the film as a whole, especially since Legolas could have been used here instead of Arwen, and since Jackson chose to expand Haldir's role for example, giving him something to do later in the films.

[Noble Elf Lord]

Originally Posted by Galin

...especially since Legolas could have been used here instead of Arwen, ...

No, he couldn't have. He woulda gone amock on horseback and shot the nazgûl to pincushions. Wouldn't that have ruined the illusion of invulnerability (that at least I got of them at first)...

[Galin]

Well, in all my posts about the films, I should add that I'm not thinking of Jackson as the director, nor of his writing team, when I propose theoretical variations that could have been.


For example: if Arwen is to be expanded, I think that she could be introduced even earlier in a film (earlier than Jackson introduced her) -- not much earlier, but in a flashback to the first meeting of Aragorn and Arwen, taken from the Appendices.

Then possibly have Legolas meet Aragorn and the hobbits... sure it's not great, but if all directors really must run away from introducing 'a character that essentially vanishes later', like Glorfindel, well in that case I find it superior to using Arwen here, at least.

But again, none of this directed or written by the Jackson team! I don't want Legolas surfing across the Bruinen or anything!

[Draken]

Originally Posted by Galin

I find nothing 'un-cinematic' about Glorfindel's approach in the book actually, and making the character Arwen (if one must that is, in theory) does not mean the same approach could not have been used.

True

Originally Posted by Galin

I don't find 'too many characters' (which is basically Jackson's own response here IIRC) very compelling outside of a general concern for the film as a whole, especially since Legolas could have been used here instead of Arwen, and since Jackson chose to expand Haldir's role for example, giving him something to do later in the films.

Well either way, it's replacing a character by introducing another earlier than in the book. Using Arwen does at least give her and Aragorn a chance to show they have a prior relationship, which maybe puts their later emotional turmoil in a better context than otherwise.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Draken

Well either way, it's replacing a character by introducing another earlier than in the book. Using Arwen does at least give her and Aragorn a chance to show they have a prior relationship, which maybe puts their later emotional turmoil in a better context than otherwise.

But that could have been done in another way. As I say, a flashback set before the hobbits and Aragorn meet 'Elf with Elf-horse'.

The journey out from Bree was long, a perfect place for a flashback in my opinion. A flashback takes up 'real time' for the audience in theaters, even though they know it can take only moments in Aragorn's head (or perhaps it was really made up of various moments as Aragorn trudged along, day after day).

Still, there is a digression: by moving from the journey to a new scene (Aragorn and Arwen), then back to a new moment of that same journey, this arguably adds to the desired impression that the journey took time -- or even if it doesn't, a flashback is not necessarily a negative cinematic device of course, and can be positive.

Films will often show or imply 'journey-length' by a sequence of scenes where the same characters are simply traveling in obviously variant backgrounds (showing day and night can help). The audience can't follow them in real time of course (well, not for this movie anyway), so in a sense, 'between' these scenes the audience gets a break with something new... the flashback... and thus movie goers will meet and know about Arwen before Aragorn arrives in Imladris.

The meeting of 'Elf with horse' can flow quickly enough into the action of the chase, and again I see no reason why Frodo could not have been alone in this chase.