I saw Arwen at Helms Deep! AHHHHH

[Galadel Vinorel]

WOW! This topic has gotten huge. Apparently this is a very strong topic that many fans had been wanting to address, but were not sure how to so a positive way. Good job you all! <P>I would like to say one more thing, if you all would not mind.<P>I would just like to state for the record that I <B>do</B> agree that Arwen should not have been put into Helms Deep. I personally love P.J. as a director, but I believe that making that change would be taking almost too much of a creative liscense with Tolkien's wonderful books. In a way, that would be changing the Middle Earth history books, and perhaps would have made even greater effecting changes later on in the story. <P>I loved, though, how P.J. and the writers found a way to put Arwen into the movies without fully changing her personality. Arwen still contained as much mystery for me in the movies as she does in the books. That, I believe was a great acomplishment of P.J., and I congratulate him on that. <P>Keep this thread going you all. It is very interesting and informative to read.

[Kronos]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Arwen, on the other hand, was used in moderation by Tolkien as a romantic figure, which I think worked very well in the books. Tolkien never once described Arwen as knowing how to wield a blade, let alone as having partaken in any battles, which for me at least makes Arwen fighting at Helm's Deep less credible.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Used in moderation?!?! Just a little. It was pretty much "now you've become King Aragorn lets take a look at what you've won and in case you've forgotten who she is (like many of the readers no doubt) her names Arwen and she's your betrothed!"<P>Lets be honest, Tolkien never once described her doing much of anything. Apart from giving Frodo a ticket to the sunshine rest home.

[Lord of Angmar]

Look no further than the Appendices, Kronos. In it he poignantly describes the love between Aragorn and Arwen in all of its stages. Just because it is not within the confines of the story itself does not mean it is not part of the book. And Arwen was not used quite so two-dimensionally as you suggest.<P>Oh, and one more thing, lest we forget, <I>The Lord of the Rings</I> as Tolkien intended it is supposed to be from a hobbit's point of view, which is a reason for her seeming banishment to the Appendices (if you choose to look at it that way). This intention of Tolkien's is rather hard to reconcile with Peter Jackson's movie additions of Arwen character.<P>-Angmar<p>[ 7:26 PM January 28, 2004: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[Knight of Gondor]

I took a look, and I say that it's contestable at best as to whether or not that's Arwen. I ran it frame-by-frame (that's a very blurry sequence), and saw one person's blurry but un-Arwen looking face holding a blurry sword that didn't look Rohan-ish. I am in doubt as to whether or not that would be her. (And how would she have gotten so close to the line of Uruks that were driven back by Eomer's forces? As I recall, the Rohan soldiers were a little further back, near the causeway.

[Kronos]

OK, let’s be clear. The appendices are not the book. Arwen and Aragorn’s story gets as much depth there as the discussion of Pipeweed gets in the prologue. Are they equally important? Its pretty clear that the Prof did not consider Arwen important and hence banished her to the appendices.<BR>And the appendices count for nothing in regards to the movie. What do you want them to do? Have a bit of text at the end of the film that says “if you want to know more about Arwen then buy the book and read the appendices”?<P>And lets not go through this ludicrous assertion that the LOTR is written from a Hobbits viewpoint. Tolkien may well have intended this but it does not stack up. Stuff occurs that the Hobbits would not have known. If you say that they could have been told about it then I would say why were they not told more about Arwen by Aragorn. The style is too jarring. There is no way that a Hobbit, the same Hobbit that wrote chapter one, wrote the bit about Theoden’s horn bursting when he blew on it such was the power of the blast. (as ludicrous piece of writing as I have ever heard)<BR>I love the way people continuously change what LOTR is to suit their argument. <P>Not enough detail?<BR>Why it’s from the Hobbits viewpoint.<P>Language archaic or events unrealistic?<BR>Its written as a mythology for England.<P>Right so Hobbits wrote a mythology for England.<P>Tell me, if its written from the Hobbit point of view how did they read the mind of the Fox that came across them in the Green Hills country?

[Lalaith]

I am quite prepared to accept that Tolkien intended Arwen as a shadowy romantic figure,but he also states that she was Luthien reborn, and Luthien was the most powerful elf that ever lived, the one Frodo calls upon at the Ford, along with Elbereth, to save him from the Nazgul.<BR>But even if PJ's treatment of Arwen is different to what Tolkien intended, she is just one quite small element in a long list of alterations PJ made, and I would argue that many of the other changes were more fundamental and serious.<BR>Take Theoden/Rohan. One of the defining traits of Rohan as a nation and culture was its absolute and unquestioning loyalty to Gondor. That was changed in the films, where was the outcry and campaigning from fans?<BR>I do NOT think Arwen should have been at Helms Deep. But I do think that the answer to why there was such a huge fuss about her, lies less in the works of Tolkien and more in the attitudes and priorities of the fans themselves.

[Knight of Gondor]

Is this about Arwen at Helm's Deep, or how we liked her portrayal? I agree she wasn't done well, but there are other threads for discussing that.<P>Hi, Angmar!