Which is worse?

[Boromir88]

As we know, PJ thought about putting Arwen in at Helm's deep (thankfully that didn't happen). But, let's play a little what if, what if Arwen was at Helm's deep? Which do you think is worse, Arwen at Helms Deep, or Arwen's falling suddenly ill, and her fate being "tied" to the ring?

[Morsul the Dark]

I believe the present way is better

I do however think Arwen at Helm's Deep would be easier to understand I didn't get it at all that her fate was tied to the rings why would it be?

Although having her at helm's deep is more annoying after all Eowyn is the strong one

[Meela]

Arwen is not a warrior. To have her at Helm's Deep would be against her typical character, and would look truly odd. Although having her fate in particular tied to the ring is out of place, at least it's something that could apply - every character is tied to the fate of the ring.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Meela's got it dead on. That line from Elrond wasn't meant to get the popcorn-munchers thinking about it in detail, it was merely to brainwash them into thinking Ring - Important!

Arwen fighting at Helm's Deep would have been worse than some war atrocities.

[Encaitare]

Wow, the whole fate tied to the ring thing was lame, but when I heard PJ almost had her come to Helms Deep I sighed in relief. It would have been incredible out of character for her, and she wasn't a major character in the book anyway and she was in the movie a little too much to begin with.

[Lhunardawen]

All of Arwen's movie apparitions that did not happen in the book are not good. There's no saying which is worse. But then again, Arwen in Helm's Deep is a pretty scary thought.

[Boromir88]

The fact that Arwen's fate was "tied" to the ring, is a sickly thought. It is true however, that everyone's fate is tied to the ring, but you don't have people falling deadly sick because of it. Now, you have Arwen who's "immortality" is beginning to fade but Elrond riding to Dunharrow made it seem like a "race against time" sort of thing. Like, ahhh if the Ring isn't destroyed soon Arwen will DIE!!! I mean everyone will die, eventually, if Sauron gets the ring but you don't got people falling sick because it wasn't destroyed.

I do have to agree, seeing Arwen at Helm's deep would have been a disaster, I might actually make her rescue of Frodo in FOTR, and make that above the "tied to the ring" because that again is extremely out of character. Jeez can't PJ get some love for GLORFINDEL!

[elronds_daughter]

All of Arwen's movie apparitions that did not happen in the book are not good. There's no saying which is worse. But then again, Arwen in Helm's Deep is a pretty scary thought.

this is true.

I mean everyone will die, eventually, if Sauron gets the ring but you don't got people falling sick because it wasn't destroyed.

also true. but haven't you forgotten Frodo? oh, wait. he wasn't really sick, just tired. there goes that argument. rats.

can't PJ get some love for GLORFINDEL!

very true. Glorfindel was deprived of his one-and-only defining moment!! AND Arwen stole his glory!!!! DEATH TO "ADVENTUROUS ARWEN"!!!!!!

[Neferchoirwen]

Arwen Warrior Princess is far more worse than Arwen the Lame. Actually, I'm happy that Arwen's physical strength stopped where it stopped in movie 1. Her will-I-stay-or-will-I-go dillema was stressful enough to begin with.

[Encaitare]

Glorfindel was deprived of his one-and-only defining moment!!

True, trilogy-wise. But assuming there was only ever one Glorfindel, maybe if there's ever a Silm movie he could kick Balrog arse.

Now Arwen fighting a Balrog would be awful. ::vomits::

[Lyta_Underhill]

The fact that Arwen's fate was "tied" to the ring, is a sickly thought. It is true however, that everyone's fate is tied to the ring, but you don't have people falling deadly sick because of it. Now, you have Arwen who's "immortality" is beginning to fade but Elrond riding to Dunharrow made it seem like a "race against time" sort of thing.

I didn't have a problem with Arwen's fate being tied to the Ring, and the race against time was palpable in ROTK, if for other reasons than Arwen's fate alone. I simply took Arwen's affect to be an effect of a "transition" from Elf-kind to mortal kind. It was simply made more pronounced in the movie, where it was an understood choice in the books. No description of the immediate effects of the choice were delineated that I can recall, so they did have the license to play about with it as an expressed concept.

I have much more of a problem with Arwen at Helm's Deep, and I'm VERY glad it did not make it into the final product. And, Glorfindel aside, I had more of a problem with Arwen's inclusion and actions as "warrior princess" usurping all of Frodo's power in the defiance of the Nazgul at the Ford! But I know that is an expected argument from one of the resident Frodophiles of the board!

Cheers!
Lyta

[Knight of Gondor]

Considering my present thoughts on the subject, I would have hated more for Arwen to be in Helm's Deep. That is so stupid, even worse than being tied to the fate of the ring. I don't even get how that is logical? The ring reached out and grabbed her spirit? Did she suddenly bolt out of bed when the Ring was unmade? "Whoo, I feel better, Ada!"

[Laitoste]

Having Arwen at Helm's Deep would be, without a doubt, much worse. She would have had no purpose there, and would have just been in the way. That entire idea was stupid and ill-conceived. But I must defend her place in rescuing Frodo (as much as I would rather have Glorfindel). Adding an extra character with no other purpose in the story (that I remember) would have most people confused. Although Frodo is perfectly capable of riding a horse and escaping Nazgul himself, thank you. With some help from the horse.

[The Perky Ent]

Arwen at Helm's Deep. It would completly ruin the plot, and storyline. Plus, Eowyn could get really jelous and kill her