Re: Battle of the Five Armies - Extended Edition

by Eldorion Thu Aug 06, 2015 11:59 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I'd say the difference this time was that anyone who know the books at all knew immediately they were talking shit- that the amount of pages versus the actual material didn't add up ect

There are a lot of readers out there, even outright Tolkien fans, who have never made it through the Appendices. I think there was a period when PJ's claims about them were generally accepted. They probably still are in some circles.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Aug 07, 2015 12:55 am

But there a lot who have, and a lot who have read the books and had them sitting there on the shelf and were prompted to read them before seeing the films and finding them having little to do with TH- and even less to do with what turned up in the film very, very loosely based on them.

Whereas with FotR at least in the run up I reckon they had even the hardcore fans onside with their gestures and saying the right things.
This time there was a section- like many of us here, who knew they were talking crap.

by Eldorion Fri Aug 07, 2015 3:48 am

I wasn't around for the run-up to LOTR of course, but I've read back through some of the extant archives and there were people who were up in arms about the movies even before they were released. The Xenarwen backlash, for example, happened after a leak during production. It actually got a bit of news coverage in the geek press which makes for interesting reading.

http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/9.10/lotr.html
http://www.theonering.com/news/the-lord-of-the-rings-movies/newswire-the-campaign-for-real-tolkien-independent-co-uk

That said, the negative response to The Hobbit was definitely much more widespread at a much earlier point, so I get what you're saying and I do think that PJ's increased brazenness played a role in that. There was already more open discussion of LOTR's flaws by 2010-2011 though I think.

by Forest Shepherd Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:10 am

Ha! An interesting tidbit from there. One of the fan rumours was apparently that Sam had been turned into a female character for the film. Quite a strange (and potentially interesting but really not proper for the material) change that would have been!
Samanthawise Gamgee?

by halfwise Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:28 pm

Female energy! cheers

by Mrs Figg Sat Aug 08, 2015 2:45 pm

at least XenaArwen was cool.

by Eldorion Sat Aug 08, 2015 6:39 pm

The worst part of movie!Arwen is how her characterization flips constantly and for no particular reason. I wonder if the removal of Xenarwen is the reason for this. Sending her to Helm's Deep seems a semi-natural outgrowth of the idea to give her Glorfindel's role (and make said role more action-heavy than it was for Glorfy in the book), but after removing that I think the writers struggled to figure out what to replace it with. So we ultimately ended up with the whole "Arwen is dying because the Ring" stuff in ROTK. I'm honestly not sure if that's better or worse than Arwen at Helm's Deep would've been. Probably better because it was less intrusive, but it still ate up a lot of screentime.

by Mrs Figg Sun Aug 09, 2015 2:12 pm

she doesn't flip constantly. she reacts differently to different events like anyone would. when she needs to be brave and energetic she is, it doesn't mean her characterization is all over the place, it just means she is like any of the other characters acting and reacting to circumstance they find themselves in. who says Arwen in the book didn't know how to invoke the river, or in extreme circumstances would fight? Arwen is pretty consistent apart from one occurrence with Frodo at the ford, and that is perfectly reasonable, plus she didn't actually do any physical fighting at all, but was static sitting on her horse. she didn't do a Tauriel at any stage so nobody can call her a butt kicker Xena, she didn't do any butt kicking.

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Aug 09, 2015 2:19 pm

she doesn't flip constantly.- Figg

She does really, even Liv Tyler all but admits so in the commentary at the parting from Rivendell scene where she says she regrets how she played Arwen in those scenes because it doesn't match the Arwen they eventually wrote her as after they had filmed those scenes.
The way the Arwen/Aragorn story was written and over and over rewritten as they filmed means there are unavoidable inconsistencies when the actor is playing the character one way that then is altered at a later stage in filming when PJ has a wonderful new idea for a big warg fight and dragging Aragorn off a cliff or something. Mad

by Mrs Figg Sun Aug 09, 2015 2:22 pm

this is made up nit-picking for the sake of it.

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Aug 09, 2015 2:54 pm

How is it made up? Its on the commentary track of the EE!

And we know now a great deal about how the writing was done on LotR's, the poor state of the second and third films initially, and the rewrites and from the commentary again we know they kept changing their mind about how to do the Arwen story line and changed it several times at the last minute, even after the last minute when they had already shot footage that was then abandoned.
Its no surprise therefore if the end result is inconsistency in portraying that character. That inconsistency is in no way Liv Tylers fault its a fault of the writing and the lack of consistency in it regards her character.

by Eldorion Sun Aug 09, 2015 3:38 pm

The person who first pointed out the extremes of Arwen's flips in characterization to me wasn't even a purist. She was, to the best of my memory, actually a big fan of the movies and largely removed from the debates over them at that point, but she had her critiques and Arwen was one of them. So credit where credit is due; this article had a big influence on my thinking about the character.

http://tinw.hubpages.com/hub/arwen-undomiel

To try and summarize things, I think it's pretty evident that PJ and Co.'s conception of Arwen changed massively during the course of production. IIRC Boyens made a comment in the EE documentaries that they initially wanted Arwen's role to be more action-heavy, but they eventually realized (post Xenarwen backlash) that she could be a strong character and figure of support despite having a more distant role, which is what she does in TTT. But in ROTK, she flips again for no reason I've ever been able to puzzle out, abandoning Middle-earth and by extension Aragorn because of her father's manipulation and then literally becoming a damsel in distress due to her mysterious and poorly-explained illness.

Mrs Figg wrote:she doesn't flip constantly. she reacts differently to different events like anyone would. when she needs to be brave and energetic she is, it doesn't mean her characterization is all over the place, it just means she is like any of the other characters acting and reacting to circumstance they find themselves in. who says Arwen in the book didn't know how to invoke the river, or in extreme circumstances would fight? Arwen is pretty consistent apart from one occurrence with Frodo at the ford, and that is perfectly reasonable, plus she didn't actually do any physical fighting at all, but was static sitting on her horse. she didn't do a Tauriel at any stage so nobody can call her a butt kicker Xena, she didn't do any butt kicking.

Rescuing Frodo and carrying him to the Ford was an action scene, and she had a more significant role than Glorfindel did in the books because they made Frodo a drooling vegetable for that portion of the movie (in the books he rode to the Ford while still conscious and able to sit in a saddle by himself). Put this together with her introduction by way of holding a sword to Aragorn's neck and some of her lines and it's pretty clear that "badass female warrior" is the character type they were going for. It would have led pretty smoothly into her making an appearance at Helm's Deep if they hadn't changed their mind about that. But since they did, the Arwen who takes it upon herself to ride across hundreds of miles of dangerous wilderness solo disappears and she behaves very differently. Would the overprotective-father-trope version of Elrond have agreed to let Arwen go rescue Aragorn by herself? I've always figured Arwen must have done it without bothering to ask for permission, but if so, then why does she cave so easily to her father when he convinces her to leave Middle-earth?

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Aug 09, 2015 3:57 pm

A solid well thought out piece.

by bungobaggins Sun Aug 09, 2015 5:15 pm

Has anyone ever fully explained the "Arwen is dying" crap? It's just completely out of nowhere.

by azriel Sun Aug 09, 2015 5:21 pm

I felt that arwen loved her Aragorn but, she came across as bit.....empty ? She didnt come across to me as the silent strong type & seemed to crumble easily like a child seeking attention when push came to shove. She stood meekly by in FOTR as tho not allowed to let people know she secretly loved a ( god forbid ) mortal, (Aragorn ) Elrond didnt mind playing the heavy handed worried dad when he tried to put Aragorn off her before trotting off on a grand beano with The Hobbits & a "L'Oreal " Elf. How was the light of the Evenstar ( or whatever Elrond said ?) leaving her ?? she perked up ok when Aragorn popped on the bling at ROTK ?

by azriel Sun Aug 09, 2015 5:35 pm

In peejers film Arwen was happy enough to outride a gang of blackriders that would have made anyone else shat themselves, just for a Hobbit she knew nothing about, confront them at the Fjord but, she forgot to send on a banner she had made, for the one love of her life, Aragorn,?

by Mrs Figg Sun Aug 09, 2015 6:47 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:she doesn't flip constantly.- Figg

She does really, even Liv Tyler all but admits so in the commentary at the parting from Rivendell scene where she says she regrets how she played Arwen in those scenes because it doesn't match the Arwen they eventually wrote her as after they had filmed those scenes.
The way the Arwen/Aragorn story was written and over and over rewritten as they filmed means there are unavoidable inconsistencies when the actor is playing the character one way that then is altered at a later stage in filming when PJ has a wonderful new idea for a big warg fight and dragging Aragorn off a cliff or something.

you have no concrete proof. its all flimflam

by Mrs Figg Sun Aug 09, 2015 6:48 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:How is it made up? Its on the commentary track of the EE!

And we know now a great deal about how the writing was done on LotR's, the poor state of the second and third films initially, and the rewrites and from the commentary again we know they kept changing their mind about how to do the Arwen story line and changed it several times at the last minute, even after the last minute when they had already shot footage that was then abandoned.
Its no surprise therefore if the end result is inconsistency in portraying that character. That inconsistency is in no way Liv Tylers fault its a fault of the writing and the lack of consistency in it regards her character.

I want concrete examples otherwise its just nitpicking for the sake of it

by Mrs Figg Sun Aug 09, 2015 6:58 pm

Eldorion wrote:The person who first pointed out the extremes of Arwen's flips in characterization to me wasn't even a purist. She was, to the best of my memory, actually a big fan of the movies and largely removed from the debates over them at that point, but she had her critiques and Arwen was one of them. So credit where credit is due; this article had a big influence on my thinking about the character.

http://tinw.hubpages.com/hub/arwen-undomiel

To try and summarize things, I think it's pretty evident that PJ and Co.'s conception of Arwen changed massively during the course of production. maybe but I am looking at the end result IIRC Boyens made a comment in the EE documentaries that they initially wanted Arwen's role to be more action-heavy, but they eventually realized (post Xenarwen backlash) that she could be a strong character and figure of support despite having a more distant role, which is what she does in TTT. But in ROTK, she flips again for no reason I've ever been able to puzzle out, whats flippin out about that? quite clearly when she had last seen Aragorn he had told her they were finished as it had all been a dream, they had left not on bad terms but with Aragorn distant emotionally from her, she is then persuaded by her father temporarily, and she turns back abandoning Middle-earth and by extension Aragorn because of her father's manipulation also by Aragorns attitude at their parting and then literally becoming a damsel in distress due to her mysterious and poorly-explained illness. that was a plot devise for the power of the Ring, she wasn't a damsel in distress.

Mrs Figg wrote:she doesn't flip constantly. she reacts differently to different events like anyone would. when she needs to be brave and energetic she is, it doesn't mean her characterization is all over the place, it just means she is like any of the other characters acting and reacting to circumstance they find themselves in. who says Arwen in the book didn't know how to invoke the river, or in extreme circumstances would fight? Arwen is pretty consistent apart from one occurrence with Frodo at the ford, and that is perfectly reasonable, plus she didn't actually do any physical fighting at all, but was static sitting on her horse. she didn't do a Tauriel at any stage so nobody can call her a butt kicker Xena, she didn't do any butt kicking.

Rescuing Frodo and carrying him to the Ford was an action scene, it wasn't a Xena butt kicking scene, and she had a more significant role than Glorfindel did in the books because they made Frodo a drooling vegetable for that portion of the movie (in the books he rode to the Ford while still conscious and able to sit in a saddle by himself). Put this together with her introduction by way of holding a sword to Aragorn's neck and some of her lines and it's pretty clear that "badass female warrior" is the character type they were going for. beg to differ, they also showed her looking pretty ethereal and fairylike on that first showing It would have led pretty smoothly into her making an appearance at Helm's Deep if they hadn't changed their mind about that. But since they did, the Arwen who takes it upon herself to ride across hundreds of miles of dangerous wilderness solo disappears and she behaves very differently. Would the overprotective-father-trope version of Elrond have agreed to let Arwen go rescue Aragorn by herself? I've always figured Arwen must have done it without bothering to ask for permission, but if so, then why does she cave so easily to her father when he convinces her to leave Middle-earth?

by Eldorion Sun Aug 09, 2015 7:14 pm

Mrs Figg wrote:maybe but I am looking at the end result

The point is that the seams are showing very visibly in Arwen's character. It's one of the parts of the film where as a result of them changing their mind partway through, you see bits of both ideas coming through in the finished film in a way that doesn't really mesh.

whats flippin out about that? quite clearly when she had last seen Aragorn he had told her they were finished as it had all been a dream, they had left not on bad terms but with Aragorn distant emotionally from her, she is then persuaded by her father temporarily, and she turns back

She goes from being a take-charge, go-getter kind of character to a very passive one, whose actions are reactive to those of her father and her boyfriend. That said, describing it as a flip was probably not a good choice of words on my part, because it's more of a gradual rotation. In TTT, even after Aragorn breaks up with her, she's still using her vague spiritual powers to "look over him from afar" and its implied that she's protecting him in some way; eg, after Aragorn falls over the cliff.

that was a plot devise for the power of the Ring, she wasn't a damsel in distress.

Then why is Arwen the only character in the entire trilogy whose "life force is bound to the Ring"? It's apparently not enough that all of Middle-earth will be conquered by Sauron if the Ring is not destroyed, but Arwen herself is made even more passive by her completely unexplained illness (which again, she is the sole sufferer from). So she goes from action-taking character, to powerful spiritual guide (not unlike Galadriel, and probably the closest to her book characterization), to leaving because of her father's manipulation and dishonesty.

beg to differ, they also showed her looking pretty ethereal and fairylike on that first showing

Fair point on them emphasizing her ethereal and spiritual powers in her introduction, but that still comes after her holding a sword to Aragorn's neck and I have always interpreted it as evidence for there being too sides to Arwen's power. But the physical side (swords, horse chases -- remember she says she's a better rider than Aragorn) disappears after FOTR with no future payoff. That's part of the reason I'm pretty sure they wrote those scenes in to establish the character traits that would have lead her to Helm's Deep in the second film.