Faramir and other changes

Gandalf's Beard wrote:By the way Eldo, is there any way for you to add a "cancel post" button as well as the "preview" and "send" button? MY PC still occasionally glitches and double or triple posts

I don't believe so, at least not without coding skills that are beyond me, but it's simple enough to hit the delete post button after the fact.

Gandalf's Beard wrote:I respectfully disagree with those that disagree with my reasoning. I've stated my views on the subject, and I don't really have any more to add.

I am as unlikely to be convinced as others are of my point of view. It was the way I saw the character of Faramir from the very first time I saw the films. And every time I see them, I see nothing to change my mind.

GB

and I respectfully acknowledge your right to your opinion - just felt the need to state where I stand as I haven't before

Eldorion wrote:

Gandalf's Beard wrote:By the way Eldo, is there any way for you to add a "cancel post" button as well as the "preview" and "send" button? MY PC still occasionally glitches and double or triple posts

I don't believe so, at least not without coding skills that are beyond me, but it's simple enough to hit the delete post button after the fact.

Yeah, that's what I've been doing.

GB

Kafria wrote:

Gandalf's Beard wrote:I respectfully disagree with those that disagree with my reasoning. I've stated my views on the subject, and I don't really have any more to add.

I am as unlikely to be convinced as others are of my point of view. It was the way I saw the character of Faramir from the very first time I saw the films. And every time I see them, I see nothing to change my mind.

GB

and I respectfully acknowledge your right to your opinion - just felt the need to state where I stand as I haven't before

No worries Kafria . I am always ready and eager to hear a new opinion. And in some cases, if the argument is convincing enough to me, I'm willing to change my mind.

GB

As the Faramir debate seems to have run its course and this is titled -and other changes. Tell me, what do you think of Arwens increased role?

I ask as I had seen a number of posts mentioning making things more 'girlie' to appeal to the mass market. I have to say it annoyed me, I love the books and did not expect to see this over played - and I am a girl. I don't see why it needed to be done! The lack of female roles in this story has never bothered me, it's a tale and doesn't need changing just as all the main characters are boys!

Kafria wrote:As the Faramir debate seems to have run its course and this is titled -and other changes. Tell me, what do you think of Arwens increased role?

I don't mind terribly; I think the rationale that they couldn't include Glorfindel because he didn't have enough of a role was hypocritical given the minor characters they introduced, but it's minor enough that I don't mind so much. The thing that I do mind about that scene is how Frodo is reduced to a helpless, drooling mess who has to be saved. I would very much have liked to see Frodo defy the Lord of the Nazgul at the Fords on his own, regardless of who had found him in the Wilderness.

I agree completely about the Ford bit-even the old animation gets it better. And I'm not entirely sure what they are trying to do at the end of scene when Arwen says her 'prayer' something about 'whatever strength I have let it pass to him' I was not sure if in some fashion it was supposed to be a nod towards Frodo taking Arwens place on the ship from the Havens. But it didn't sit well with me. I can understand why they replaced Glorfindel with her but I dislike it because it makes no narrative sense- the idea Elrond would send his only daughter out against the Nazgul is preposterous.
I don't mind the scenes between her and Aragorn at Rivendell, in an adaptation you have to have that side to Aragorns life- but I would much prefer it if the conditions of their relationship were as in the book- where Elrond forbids the marriage of his daughter to any man unless he is King of Gondor and Arnor- its yet another echo of the Beren Luthien tale and I was annoyed it was not in the film.
I don't think she is necessary in TT at all and scenes with her in, the dream stuff at the river in particular, are badly contrived just to shoe horn her in and film does not benefit from it.
I would have liked to see them make more of her at the end of RotK. In the book it is Arwen who first truly recognises the depth of the hurt Frodo has suffered and gives him the gem to wear in place of the Ring. The one bit of the book where she has an upfront role and PJ ignores it-how typical.

Whilst I am always loathe to suggest PJ got anything right ( ) I think having Arwen meet them in the Wilderness instead of Glorfindel was a good idea. I like the idea so much I'm prepared to forget my Purism on this. I think Tolkien should have used the same opportunity to introduce Arwen (no need to mention the romance yet, of course). But I strongly agree that it was all handled badly. The shield maiden idea was inept, and the scene on the river bank corny, quite demeaning to both Arwen and Frodo. If one was to go to the book and change all gender references from "male" to "female", I feel Arwen would become an excellent "female" Glorfindel. No other rewriting would have been necessary:-Jane

Petty said: "the idea Elrond would send his only daughter out against the Nazgul is preposterous."

Tolkien's females were strong without being shield maidens. Even Glorfindel wasn't depicted martially. He was a scout of sorts. Why not allow Arwen a limited role like that? Arwen being a high elf with whatever "magic" or "powers" elf princesses have (think of Luthien), then perhaps her father would have trusted in her ability to do a job - which was quite "local" so to speak. Why not trust in her like he did his sons? Whatever the case, the thought is not "preposterous" surely? You're not being a little sexist here, are you Petty?:-Jane

I don't think she is necessary in TT at ..........I would have liked to see them make more of her at the end of RotK.

Once agian I have to agree, I undertand why PJ put Arwen in TT, but it always jarred and made little sense. I'm never sure if thats because originally Arwen was supposed to be in Helms deep too (Liv shot some stuff there I believe), maybe her vision and returning to rivendell was meant to precede this and I can kind of see to logc to it (even if it is wrong wrong wrong!). The other possibility is that it replaced the Helms Deep stuff (when it became apparent ot even PJ that Arwen fighting was wrong) and is why it is slightly rushed/poorly concieved.

The Arwen bit at the end of ROTK always irritates me as a girl (there she is meek and shy and unsure of herself, just like a 'good little lady'..ARGGGHHHHH!) And Aragorn lunging at his wife to be... well ....kings should behave better!!!

Not at all Jane! Elrond only sent his sons out after the Black Riders had been washed away in the Ford- and they were sent to gather information, not to confront the Nazgul.
Arwen seems to have had a fairly sheltered life and never had to pick up a sword in anger. She spent her life going between Rivendell and Lothlorien, there is no indication she was trained in weaponry or had ever had to use any.
And Glorfindel was not just any old elf- he was a very ancient one, with great concealed powers on the 'other side' as Frodo perceives him whilst wearing the Ring. And, although it might be a different Glorfindel I think he was the one who slew a Balrog at the Fall of Gondolin (Lore Master check please Eldo!) If so then he was at least of a strength and wisdom to be a good choice to send out. Your only daughter is never going to be a good choice to send into an exceptional dangerous and potentially lethal situation.

On the end of RotK Kafria -Kings should also have a shave for their coronation and not look like they just wandered in from sleeping rough! Visually the transformation from Strider to Aragorn is badly handled.

I confess, Kafria, that Viggo could lunge at me anytime, providing Henry and Danny are out, of course! I do see your point though. Perhaps if PJ had stuck with how Tolkien depicted her we would have no cause to complain. I still liked the idea of her replacing Glorfindel, so long as she played the same role:-Jane

Petty, remember Luthien! What training did she have? Arwen is of the same bloodline, surely. Her High elvishness would surely be of the same quality as Glorfindel's:-Jane

Ah I always have a problem with Viggo, not that he is bad, just I would have preferred Sean Bean Been a big fave of mine since he was in Sharpe!

*daydreaming - Sean Bean...Lunging at me......mmmmmmm!*

okay, maybe it's not soooo bad!

Kafria wrote:The Arwen bit at the end of ROTK always irritates me as a girl (there she is meek and shy and unsure of herself, just like a 'good little lady'..ARGGGHHHHH!)

I think this touches on a problem with Arwen's characterization in the films that is greater than any one change: the screenwriters couldn't make up their minds what they wanted her to be. In the first film she's a 'warrior princess' (during filming fans started calling her Xenarwen ). In the second film she was originally supposed to be this, but they changed things so that she was 'watching over Aragorn from afar' similar to the implication in the book. I thought this was done pretty well overall, but then from the end of TTT on they turn her into a stereotypically useless damsel who is first manipulated by Elrond, then slowlying dying (her "lifeforce" is "bound to the Ring", huh?), then inexplicably shy and meek around her fiance (whom she is much older than, too boot). It's a bit schizophrenic when you watch all the films together, really.

'Her High elvishness would surely be of the same quality as Glorfindel's:-Jane'

But not her direct experience. Remember what Elrond would be sending her up against- even Gandalf doesn't think he would have survived had all 9 attacked him on Weathertop. If Elronds not prepared to leave his daughter in ME to die of old age and natural causes he is hardly likely to send her into certain danger in the meantime.

I do agree with you Eldo and Kafria about her character being undecided and fluctuating. Its a bit of a mess. In some scenes shes like a women from a hundred years ago, always looking demurely downwards with a shy awkwardness, in other scenes she's a brave warrior, and in others a sort of guardian spirit, and by the end she's back to meek and pointless.

I concur Eldo. I think the best Arwen-Aragorn scenes in the movies were (most) of the flashback scenes with the two lovers. Call me a romantic, but I think (most) of it worked in those parts. Arwen appeared to have a maturity about her by then. Didn't like that stuff about Arwen leaving Middle Earth then having a "vision" of her child. That was a bit on the nose with me. The wedding scene would have been better with a "maturer" un-shy Arwen, I agree:-Jane.


(Sean Bean? Mmm... yes, I could go for that, too, Kafria. (So long as our husbands or offspring don't notice. ) )

Petty: "Remember what Elrond would be sending her up against- even Gandalf doesn't think he would have survived had all 9 attacked him on Weathertop."

I'm not sure you're aware of it, but that comes across as somewhat specious, Petty. Glorfindel didn't come across all 9. Nor should Arwen have had to:-Jane

Only by luck Glorfindel didn't run into all nine- they didn't know where the Black Riders were- from Elronds point of view it would have been a possible risk for anyone sent out- including his daughter.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
I don't think she is necessary in TT

Not for those who have read the books, perhaps, but there has to be some sort of continuity in Aragorn and Arwen's relationship on film, which means their relationship needs at least one scene, preferably more, in TT also. Introducing the relationship in FotR, then leaving it out completely from TT and finally bringing the relationship to a conclusion in RotK would not be good film, in my opinion.

Petty, Arwen was not a "little" girl, was she? A mature woman is my best guess. Again, while Tolkien may not have thought of it, if the idea had occurred to him, it would not be outside the parameters of what he was capable of allowing his heroines to do. Indeed, I would strongly argue, it would be well within them, Petty. It was the sort of thing Luthien was guilty of, as you know, albeit probably without permission - at least at first. It is unclear if she did or didn't have permission as her story progressed. Eowyn also did her stuff without permission. Perhaps Arwen too? I'm not convinced Elrond would have totally forbidden it anyway. It's certainly not "preposterous", no matter how one looks at it - unless, perhaps, one underestimates Tolkien's ideas about his heroines :-Jane

BLaaaaaaaaarrrgh! I just lost my post into the ether. Bloody hell! Screw it, I'll just have to come back later. I'm too irked to redo my post now.

GB

I am currently re-reading The Lord of the Rings (in Norwegian this time), and I became suddenly aware of an interesting fact: when I read, I imagine some characters to look like they do in the films, while other characters are different (that is, I have my own ideas of what they look like). For instance, Gandalf looks like Gandalf from the films when I read, while Gimli is completely different. I can only guess that this is because I feel that some characters (such as Gandalf) were adapted more truthfully, while others (Gimli and more) were changed too drastically.

How do you picture the characters from the books when you read? Are the faces from the films dominating, or do you have ideas of your own? Or do you, like me, have a little mix of both?

An interesting question Ringdrotten. I have a weird mix, for Gandalf for example I 'hear' Michael Hordern from the BBC radio plays, but I 'see' Ian Mckellan (his Gandalf physically is so close to the many depictions in art of Gandalf that there is little difference in my imaginings however from before the films to after, maybe just a bit of refinement). For me whilst Sir Ian looks superb his Gandalf lacks, well a bit of crabbitness, he is nowhere near as crabbit and 'quick to anger' as the Gandlaf of the books and I think Hordern captured that better in his voice.
With Aragorn I have always had my own version. Viggo's voice would be no good for nicking internally as its completely inconsistent throughout the films ranging from Scandinavian to Irish via South America!
I have my own imagined Frodo and Sam, but Sam's voice I borrow as it were, again from the radio version, same with Boromir, although these days I do find Bean poppoing into my vision of what Boromir looks like.
I think you might have a point, that the further removed from the book version one of PJ's characters is the less easy it is to assimialate into ones own imaginings without all the terrible rubbish coming with it as mental baggage.

And, although it might be a different Glorfindel I think he was the one who slew a Balrog at the Fall of Gondolin (Lore Master check please Eldo!) If so then he was at least of a strength and wisdom to be a good choice to send out.

I don't think anyone responded yet, so yes, there is only one Glorfindel, reincarnated by the Valar and sent back to Middle-earth as a companion to Gandalf -- superseded by (a seemingly later idea): sent to Middle-earth in the Second Age for the purpose of strengthening Gil-galad and Elrond.

Even in the brief glimpses of him given in The Lord of the Rings he appears as specially concerned with Gandalf, and was one (the most powerful, it would seem) of those sent out from Rivendell when the disquieting news reached Elrond that Gandalf had never reappeared to guide or protect the Ring-bearer.' JRRT, Glorfindel I

This matter still seems somewhat confused on the web, perhaps in part due to The Encyclopedia of Arda, who raise The Problem of ROS in their approach to the question, muddling things, and 'sort of' treat the issue as if there are two Glorfindels.

The Problem of ROS is confusing enough!