Ask Arwen

Started by Kitoky5 pages

How much wood would a wood chuck chuck chuck wood?

Originally posted by Kitoky
How much wood would a wood chuck chuck chuck wood?

😕

huh?

O.K. so why did PJ come close to ruining the movies by putting you in it so much? The books hardly mention you, but you are a major player in the films. Doesn't that bother you? They took a story out of the Simirilian, applied it to the LotR, and thus made Liv Tyler a major character. They gave Arwen credit for rescuing Frodo when it wasn't her. Just wondering if I am the only one that was annoyed at this.

Hhmm, another Tolkien purist, eh? 😉

For your question, no. You're not the only one. Go to several other forums and you will see that there are more movie-Arwen haters. Not just you. However, I'm not one of them. 😉

It doesn't bother me at all. I was actually glad for what they did. Just imagine having a certain Elf princess going in the coronation and marrying the King. Who the hell is she? We haven't seen her before. You see, they have to give her character development and more screentime to be able for the movie-goers to believe. This movie wasn't made just for the Tolkien scholars you see. They are made for everyone, so they have to sacrifice some of the "truths" from the book.

Hhmm, they took out a storyline in "The Silmarillion", I wonder what that is. Beren and Luthien's storyline? Perhaps, but it's not entirely made-up by the filmmakers. The two love stories have some similarities already even way back from the book, so it's not impossible for them to do that.

They gave Arwen credit for saving Frodo? Again, this is a movie, not the book. 😉 The book had Glorfindel, the movie did not, obviously. And I don't think they needed Glorfindel so badly. What for? He'll rescue Frodo, then what? No character development to follow, and he'll disappear for the entire rest of the movie. Just give his role to the one that needs more character development and could do the job. 😉

I'm sorry. I know I'm not Aniron, but for some reason, I felt the need to answer. I'm not her die hard fan, but I just wanted to express my views. This is a hundred year old topic already, and yet I don't get tired of it. 🙂

Just to emphasize a point again...Never connect the movie with the books. They are two separate things. It's a movie. It's a movie. It's a movie. It's a movie. It's a movie. Movie | Book. Not Movie = Book. I should go see those movies to experience them for themselves. Not experience the movie as a visual of the book.

The only reason they did all that was for money. By adding Arwen as a major character, they attracted more women to the cineplexes. I believe that was their goal, and that is wrong. If they altered the books to maybe make some things flow better, fine. If they took some things out so the movies weren't eight hours each, fine. Making things up to sell more tickets? That's wrong. And when you have such a long loved epic that has been read by millions, you need to stay with the story. I don't mind Hollywood altering some books, but not books as old and as loved as these.

Hey...so if there is a ask Exa thread, and now a ask Arwen thread..

I think there should be a ask a A.D. Skinner thread...I mean...there might be some questions that I could answer...

( goes to make thread )

Um...actually the Ask Exa thread was for any questions regarding Lord of the Rings or Tolkien in general - this thread is just some fun, you aska question and aniron answers them as Arwen.

What is the meaning of life ????

( sits back for Elvish explanation )

Originally posted by Ddraiglais
The only reason they did all that was for money.

Really? I guess we should hang PJ and all the filmmakers then. Those bastards.

🙄

Money is beside the point. After all, what type of media doesn't do whatever they do because of the money as one of the reasons? Harry Potter movies being made was also for the money, the Matrix movies, especially the sequels were made also for the money, Britney Spears kept on recording her songs for the money. Money is one of the reasons why EVERYTHING is being made. Besides the biological factors of course.

Putting Arwen there or not wouldn't change the fact that the LOTR movies would still make a lot of money. Maybe you should change your view about this a little bit and stay out of the negative thoughts (money).
They didn't put Arwen in there just so the feminists could have a rejoicing moment. They could have that through Eowyn. They've put Arwen in there not just so the guys could have a female character to drool over. It's not like while Arwen is saving Frodo, every males in the theater would say.."damn, that chick is hot." 🙄 They've put Arwen in there for a reason...to actually give her a CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT that could enhance the overall LOTR storyline. It's not just her own character she's developing. Aragorn and Eowyn's too.

Like I said, you're not the only one watching the movie. The movies are not made only for Tolkien purists. Try putting Arwen during the coronation without any introductions prior to that. I bet some movie-goers will say..."woah! What's Liv Tyler doing in there?" 🙄

By adding Arwen as a major character, they attracted more women to the cineplexes. I believe that was their goal, and that is wrong.

Believe what you want. It's just sad that you really have to give negative reasons just so you could prove your point that what they did is wrong. I mean, what is right and what is wrong exactly? You can't say that something is wrong because for some people, they are right.

Making things up to sell more tickets? That's wrong.

Whoever told you that they did it just for the tickets? You're too condemnatory it's not even funny. Yeah, you believe that they did it because of the tickets, and yet you actually purchased it.

And when you have such a long loved epic that has been read by millions, you need to stay with the story. I don't mind Hollywood altering some books, but not books as old and as loved as these. [/B]

They do stay with the story. Aragorn was made King, the Ring was destroyed, Sauron is the main evil villain, they went to Moria, to Fangorn Forest, and all that. Just because they altered some scenes doesn't mean that they don't stay with the storyline.

I do think that your mind was already set even before you went and see the movies though. I just wish that you went watching the movie with an open mind. Otherwise, you could have just stayed at home and read your book for free.

Really? I guess we should hang PJ and all the filmmakers then. Those bastards.

Hey, I'm all for it. J/K

Money is beside the point. After all, what type of media doesn't do whatever they do because of the money as one of the reasons? Harry Potter movies being made was also for the money, the Matrix movies, especially the sequels were made also for the money, Britney Spears kept on recording her songs for the money. Money is one of the reasons why EVERYTHING is being made. Besides the biological factors of course.

I'll give you that money is why most people do things, but if they did it right, they would have sold millions of tickets anyway. It's when people put money over something so special when I have a problem.

Putting Arwen there or not wouldn't change the fact that the LOTR movies would still make a lot of money. Maybe you should change your view about this a little bit and stay out of the negative thoughts (money).
They didn't put Arwen in there just so the feminists could have a rejoicing moment. They could have that through Eowyn. They've put Arwen in there not just so the guys could have a female character to drool over. It's not like while Arwen is saving Frodo, every males in the theater would say.."damn, that chick is hot." 🙄 They've put Arwen in there for a reason...to actually give her a CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT that could enhance the overall LOTR storyline. It's not just her own character she's developing. Aragorn and Eowyn's too.

See, here's where we disagree. I really believe that they put the whole love story in there so more women would go.

Like I said, you're not the only one watching the movie. The movies are not made only for Tolkien purists. Try putting Arwen during the coronation without any introductions prior to that. I bet some movie-goers will say..."woah! What's Liv Tyler doing in there?" 🙄

That might encourage people to......dare I say it, read!

Believe what you want. It's just sad that you really have to give negative reasons just so you could prove your point that what they did is wrong. I mean, what is right and what is wrong exactly? You can't say that something is wrong because for some people, they are right.

No, it's a shame when you change things like that. Say we made a movie about the bible (BTW I'm not Christian I'm just using this as a reconizable example). Let's say to "enhance" the story of the Exodus we decide that Moses is going to have a love interest in the Pharoah's court. We could take this throughout the whole story until she meets him in Canaan (which he never made it), and they get married and live happily ever after. Would people go for that? I doubt it. Changing art like that is just not right. If you say it is, then let's go get the Mona Lisa and repaint it so she's smiling. Then we can all feel happy.

Whoever told you that they did it just for the tickets? You're too condemnatory it's not even funny. Yeah, you believe that they did it because of the tickets, and yet you actually purchased it.

Yes I did. And believe it or not, I actually enjoyed most of the movies. They were awesome as far as costumes and effects. My problem is changing the storyline. Arwen should not have a major role, Gandalf and Shadowfax have not been together these many ages (an important part when they get to Medulsed), Eomer was in Helm's Deep at the battle, etc. And to someone who loves the books as much as I do, it starts to get annoying.

They do stay with the story. Aragorn was made King, the Ring was destroyed, Sauron is the main evil villain, they went to Moria, to Fangorn Forest, and all that. Just because they altered some scenes doesn't mean that they don't stay with the storyline.

If that's your criteria for sticking to the story, then why make the movies at all? Those things happen in the cartoons they made in the seventies.

I do think that your mind was already set even before you went and see the movies though. I just wish that you went watching the movie with an open mind. Otherwise, you could have just stayed at home and read your book for free.

I went to see "The Fellowship..." with a very closed mind. I left loving it for the most part. I went to go see The Two Towers" and was very excited. I came home disappointed. " The Return of the King" was everyithing I wanted and more when I first watched it. By the time I got to the car, I was rethinking that. By the time a week went by, I didn't like it. I may buy the DVD to see it again. Maybe if I watch all three of them, I'll like them more. Or maybe I can watch them and close my eyes during the parts that they added?

Woah...big discussion.

Originally posted by Ddraiglais
Let's say to "enhance" the story of the Exodus we decide that Moses is going to have a love interest in the Pharoah's court. We could take this throughout the whole story until she meets him in Canaan (which he never made it), and they get married and live happily ever after. Would people go for that? I doubt it.

This would also be a little more drastic than Arwen's enhanced role... she does exist in the book and she also has to be in the films. Don't get me wrong, I hate her part in FoTR [stole Glorfindel's role AND horse 😠 ] and I'm really happy that she was cut in Helm's Deep, but at least her story would theoretically be possible. What I'm more angry about is [ot] the fact that there are elves in the Battle of the Súthburg [though I DID like most of the scenes ignoring their context]... that just doesnt go with how Tolkien characterizes the elves of the late Third Age and seems unfitting. However, back to Arwen... the really sad thing is that they didn't only needlessly enhance her role, but also cut or shortened the rather important part - Arwen was it who first noticed Frodo's despair and his wounded soul. She was it who asked Gandalf for the permission to let him go into the West and release him from his burden so he could try to heal and as a symbol gave Frodo this white jewel [cf. Letter 246, footnote 3 or 4]. A little of it was covered with her words in FoTR ("He's fading", "Frodo fîr [...] tur gwaith nîn beriatha hon" - though that was rather litterally for that scene and might not be connected to Tolkien's version - and especially "What grace is given me let it pass to him. Let him be spared. Save him."😉, but imo the real meaning of these words was lost. Sad. But I still support what Shadowy said.

I found Glorfindel too bland.

Originally posted by Ddraiglais
I'll give you that money is why most people do things, but if they did it right, they would have sold millions of tickets anyway. It's when people put money over something so special when I have a problem.

First of all, they got them right. Several LOTR fans who have read the books for many decades even before the movies came out are happy with the results. So, obviously, they did the majority parts of the movies right.
Why are you so obsessed with the idea that money is the major and most important reason that's why they changed some scenes? 🤨 You know, I'll give you some reasons.

1. To stay believable and realistic - not everything that works in the books could work in three dimensional movies. Sure we're talking about fantasy and Middle-earth but there are still some areas where our believability suspensions have limits. Not everything could be well translated into film. (and please don't insert the money argument again. Don't tell me that they should even sacrifice the believability of the movies just so you could have everything that you're asking for, to the point that only YOU could understand and tolerate the movies.)
2. Time issues - you couldn't translate everything in 3 and a half hour movie and actually expect that everyone will like it. It would also be the main weak point of the movie; it wouldn't be the great movie that it is right now if they translated every bits and pieces of everything from the book.

See, here's where we disagree. I really believe that they put the whole love story in there so more women would go.

They didn't put the story in there so more women would go. They've put the love story in there because it exists in the book at the first place. Remember?
The love story in the book was told full in the appendices, but obviously we don't have an appendices in the movie, so they had to put it in there. Also, (for the second time)...they enhanced the love story in the movie because it is one of the major character development devices for Arwen herself, Aragorn, Eowyn, and even Elrond.
They've put the love story in there so more women would go? What do you think the women today are like? 1850s women? Sucker for romance and women-related ideas? Heh..I tell you...majority of the women do not go there for Arwen. They go for LEGOLAS, ARAGORN, and the other guys they're drooling over. Several women also go there for the battle scenes (yes..battles)..and some really go there for the story and the movie itself. Some couldn't care less about Arwen.
No, it's a shame when you change things like that. Say we made a movie about the bible (BTW I'm not Christian I'm just using this as a reconizable example). Let's say to "enhance" the story of the Exodus we decide that Moses is going to have a love interest in the Pharoah's court. We could take this throughout the whole story until she meets him in Canaan (which he never made it), and they get married and live happily ever after. Would people go for that? I doubt it. Changing art like that is just not right.

Exa replied to this already. And I agree with her.
If you say it is, then let's go get the Mona Lisa and repaint it so she's smiling. Then we can all feel happy.

That's just ridiculous. First of all, you have no reason to do that. It's a painting, and you're not doing a movie based on the painting alone, unless you're really desperate and have an entire effective storyline of why Mona Lisa would smile. However, if you feel like you really wanna do it...then suit yourself.
Gandalf and Shadowfax have not been together these many ages (an important part when they get to Medulsed)

Yeah..so we're going to have a flashback from when Gandalf went to Rohan and had some issues with King Theoden and then the bitter King Theoden that is under Saruman and Wormtongue's influence will be kinda rude to Gandalf then Gandalf will see Shadowfax and then he'll tame him and then Theoden will reluctantly tell him that he could take him if he want, just go away as soon as possible.
Yeah, very convenient, eh? First of all, not EVERYONE cares about the origin of how they met. It is unnecessary in the film. It's not the most important thing in the world. It doesn't support any major storylines. The origin of how they became friends doesn't have anything to do with the quest of the Fellowship as a whole, it doesn't have anything to do whether or not the Ring will be destroyed, the Battle of Helm's Deep didn't become a success because Gandalf and Shadowfax met at Rohan during the Third Age, etc.
Also, the scene that they made in the movie wasn't too far-fetched. A Meara, and a Wizard being friends for many ages? Two mighty and great creatures being very long-time friends? I'm all for it. In my opinion, it is a better story than Gandalf finding and taming Shadowfax.

Their friendship's origin is only very minor compared to the other things that the movie have to take time to develop. Let's just be grateful that at least Shadowfax exists in the movie, and we actually got to have an ethereal scene where he was introduced and his name was told to millions of people who were watching.

Eomer was in Helm's Deep at the battle, etc.

Believe it or not, I agree with you. 😉 But technically, he was there, you know..at the ending climax of the battle, but I know what you mean. 😉 But yeah, I agree with you here. My complaint is that Eomer was almost non-existant in the movie. Seems like he was only a regular soldier or something, Gamling even turned out to be more important than him from what I saw. 🙄 I'm complaining about it because they don't have any reason to do that (that Gamling is more dominating than Eomer in the movies. I could think of some subtle ways of how they could show Eomer's importance without taking too much time) So you see, I'm not just all-the-way-movie-defender-fan. I also have some disappointments, not at EVERYTHING though.
If that's your criteria for sticking to the story, then why make the movies at all?

I never said that those are the only criterias. You didn't actually expect me to list everything that they kept and got right, did you?
The Return of the King" was everyithing I wanted and more when I first watched it. By the time I got to the car, I was rethinking that. By the time a week went by, I didn't like it.[/b]

What? 🤨 You claimed that ROTK was everything you wanted and more and then after a week, you didn't like it? 🤨 So how are you suppose to like it again if you already claimed that it was "everything you wanted and more"? What more are you expecting? Don't you suppose that it's IMPOSSIBLE already that the movie will be better in your view if you already felt that it was "everything you wanted and more"?
I may buy the DVD to see it again. Maybe if I watch all three of them, I'll like them more. Or maybe I can watch them and close my eyes during the parts that they added?

No. You can just fast it forward if you really didn't like the scene. You could still hear the dialogues if you just closed your eyes. It will be more boring for you if you just listened to the scene that you dislike. 😉

wow shadowy - you take over the role of arwen - you answer all the darn questions

LOL, I know. 😛 I didn't actually intended it at first. I just thought that maybe I could answer some of Ddraiglais complaints and then that's it. But obviously, this discussion kinda went far. 😛

LOL..sorry Aniron. 🙂

Kit, just a question though. Is it OK? Or do we have to take this discussion in other threads? 😕

Tig Party will be more convenient

But I suppose if we take it there some people will be out of place and they wouldn't be able to post random things anymore and talk about more cheerful stuff with their friends.

That would be most convenient I'm afraid.

What would happen if Agagorn died in some battle and you found out what would you have done if that happened?