Welcome Guest 

Register

Forum Home » Movies Discussion » Discuss the Movies » Glorfindel vs Arwen
12
Author Topic:
BelleBayard
Prancing Pony Moderator & Elf Laundry Mistress
Posts: 3151
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: September 11, 2002 06:54
Much as I loved Glorfindel in the book, in order for people to understand why Aragorn would marry her, PJ had to expand her role to explain the romance. Yes, Arwen was hardly a shield maiden (though they weren't unknown), but she was more than just a decoration, too. So many subtle things about her character would be so very difficult to portray in film.
Scothia
CoE Elder Sister
Posts: 800
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: September 11, 2002 12:03
Films do not have the luxury of subtlety that books do. Characters have to be compressed and composite, or dropped altogether. Especially when dealing with such a massive undertaking as this! It's not meanness. It's movies.

Let's face it--Glorfindel did a fine turn at Bruinen in the books. But other than that and prophesying the doom of the Witch King, he doesn't really enter into the picture again. I thought it was fabulous the way they did the Fords scene in the movie. We already knew Glorfindel wouldn't be there. We knew Arwen would be.

I, for one, was ecstatic to see Arwen's character fleshed out, even if it meant somebody else didn't make the cut. She is in every way a queen worthy of Aragorn.

So I'll go back to the books and meet Glorfindel, then back to the DVD to meet Arwen. Twice the excitement. :love:
laiqalasse
Council Member
Posts: 4
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: May 29, 2003 05:19
the childish part of me is saying "Glorfindel all the way, baby." i've loved him since i was 8 when my dad read the books to me. HOWEVER, i must say that most of Peter Jacksons Elves were slightly disappointing. i adore Orlando Bloom as Legolas and Hugo Weaving as Elrond is fantastic (the female Elves are alright, but i'll get to that), but the rest of the male Elves are just not very Elven (i love Haldir, but Craig Parker just doesn't have *it* and don't get me started on Mark Ferguson as Ereinion Gil-galad). i can't help but think that i would have been disappointed and that would have been FAR worse than no Glorfindel at all.

i'm not sure i'm a fan of the whole Arwen thing, though, either. now i'm not knocking Liv Tyler here as i think she was great as Arwen, i'm simply saying that once again, Peter Jackson's vision of Arwen doesn't match my own. i always saw her as the quintessential Elven Princess, very lady-like and slightly over-protected. to have her turn into this fierce warrior is a bit strange.

FINALLY...if he was going to use Arwen he should have just used Arwen instead of giving her Glorfindel's glow, Glorfindel's horse, Elrond's powers over the Bruinen, and Gandalf's ability to make the white horses appear in the waters.

**stepping off my soapbox now**

sorrry 'bout that, i just had to vent.

~~laiqalasse~~
Naurlas
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 1661
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: May 31, 2003 11:16
I have to agree w/ both Scothia and BelleBayard, PJ expands Liv Tyler's role because she was know to most movie goers, I mean i had only heard of 3 of the leads in the movie...Ian Mckellen, Cate Blanchett and Sean Bean ( sorry got carried away there) and he had to make it more "bankable". I agree, i loved Glorifindel in the books and think the portrayal of Arwen in the movie is a complete 360 but i think i just it would be too much for people who had never read the books to introduce another important character and then have them fadddddeeeee away....
Legolin
Council Member
Posts: 25
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: September 09, 2003 03:35
I love elves in the movie, I think Haldir was the best (even over Legolas), but I belive that you are giving Arwen the shaft. You see, it has come to my attention that a good 95% of the posters here are women, therefore it makes sense that you would want to see more Glorfindel. However, there are a few fans of the opposite gender here (me) and for us there is very little in the way of girls in the movie for us *drool* over.

Personally, I like Galadriel the best, but returning to the topic, I have no problems with Arwen being in the movie at that role and here's the reasons why...

1. Glorfindel makes two appearences in the book, one at the ford, one at the council, and then is not heard from again. Arwen, on the other hand, marries one of the lead characters. One problem with Tolkien's books is that unless you pay good attention you won't even know who Arwen is when she marries Aragorn, she just shows up.

2. There are three leading females in LotR, Galadriel, Arwen, and Eowyn. Galadriel has a small part in the FotR and a bit part in TTT, Eowyn does some stuff in TTT, and dresses in drag for most the RotK, that leaves Arwen to provide a little something for us to enjoy.

To sum everything up it is natural for you to wish for another elf to drool over, but do not forget that there are some of us who appreciate the she-elves as well.
Celedë_Anthaas
Stargazer of Ithilien
Posts: 1594
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: March 02, 2004 09:42
I WANT GLORFINDEL!!!
I know that it would have been difficult to introduce him in the movie, and that it might have been a bit confusing for those who haven't read the books, they probably wouldn't understand who Glorfindel is, and why Arwen marries Aragorn. BUT WHY COULDN'T THEY HAVE READ THE BOOKS BEFORE GOING TO THE MOVIE?!?!?! sorry, got a little over-excited

Anyway, I don't want Glorfindel to be in the movie because I want to ''drool'', I think he's an important character, so people understand that Rivendell isn't just a pretty house, but that there is power there that Sauron fears.
Of course Arwen is important too, but she doesn't have to be a warrior princess. Instead of letting her do the 'Flight to the Ford'-scene, they could have put in a flash-back of when she met Aragorn or something like that. I don't really like the movie Arwen. All that stuff about her going to Valinor and that she hasn't 'made her choice' (and of course the Flight to the Ford) made me so angry. Arwen had already 'made her choice' (in 2980, almost 40 years before the War of the Ring!) when she met Aragorn in Lothlórien, that would have been a nice flash-back too, better than that dream of Aragorn in TTT.

I think the movie would have been better this way, the same amount of Arwen, but without changing her role. This way you can still drool, Legolin!
Earla
Council Member
Posts: 65
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: March 02, 2004 09:59
I think PJ made a big mistake leaving Glorfindel out of the movies.He is like one of the most important characters in the book and if they first wanted to make a movie about the book they didnt have to leave out so many mayor caracters.As for example Glorfindel.I totaly agree with Celede Anthaas that Arwen should'nt have been made into a "warrior-princess".Why could'nt they make here calm and cool as in the books.Glorfindel is like *one* of my favourite caracters and i was bloody disapointed that they left him out*read the books after seeing the first movie:blush:* *runs and starts beating up PJ* This is for leaving Glorfindel out!*punch* This is for leaving Tom Bombadil & the Barrowwight out*punch* This is for changing Faramir's character too much*:blushont say i said that*

[Edited on 4/3/2004 by atalante_star]
Tinúmelë
Council Member
Posts: 71
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: May 03, 2004 02:46
Arwen had already 'made her choice' (in 2980, almost 40 years before the War of the Ring!) when she met Aragorn in Lothlórien, that would have been a nice flash-back too, better than that dream of Aragorn in TTT.


OMG that is EXACTLY what I thought! If the filmmakers wanted more Arwen, why didn't they include Aragorn's memories of them in Lorien which actually happened in the books. I think a flashback of the two of them in Lothlorien would have been beautiful to watch.

But I'm off topic. What I wanted to say was...if the filmwriters wanted someone to come to the ford but not have to introduce a new character why couldn't they use Elrond? After all, he had the power over the valley and with his blue ring to help would have caused the flood. Not sure if I could see Hugo on a horse, but hey, it shows some promise. It would have been better than Arwen anyway.
Figwit
Book Club Moderator & Misty Mountain Monster
Posts: 1966
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: May 03, 2004 03:48
I can't see why people keep hammering Glorfindel's importance in the book? I don't know where I wrote it, but I once counted the number of pages Glorfindel was in, and the number of lines he speaks; and compared them to Arwen's. Throughout the entire trilogy, Arwen appears three times as much as Glorfindel.

And in the end, what does Glorfindel do? He goes out to look for them (as does Arwen), drops a beryl on the bridge and gives his horse to Frodo. Then, at the council, he discusses the fate of the Ring. Oh, and he sits at the table during the feast.

At least Arwen is vital to the story. Any odd Elf could have saved Frodo, as is proven by both this movie and the Bakshi version (where it was Legolas - I do wonder if there would have been as much fuzz if it had been Legsy ). But not any odd Elf could have married Aragorn.

Arwen is Elrond's daughter, Aragorn is (by long descent) related to Elros. The union of Arwen and Aragorn is the re-union of the children of Elwing and Eärendill.
Arwen is Undómiel, referring to the twilight. Lúthien Tinúviel was the morningstar, the eternal dawn. Aragorn, as Beren, is a mortal man who enchants the heart of an Elf lady, but to properly gain it has to fulfill an incredible task.

What is more, one of the great motivations behind Aragorn's labours ís Arwen. She turned away from the twilight for him, gave up the immortality of the Elves. He knows she will hold to that, whatever Elrond says of it. However, he will not marry her without her father's consent, so he will reunite Arnor and Gondor as requested in order to really stand beside her as her husband.

There are many layers to the story of Arwen and Aragorn, which makes it one of the more interesting details in the trilogy. Maybe Glorfindel has significance in the Sil (if indeed it is the same Glorfindel ), but his significance to the story of the Ring is as good as nihil.
Celebrian
Council Member
Posts: 420
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: May 12, 2004 11:17
Personally, I've always felt that replacing Glorfindel with Arwen was one of the WORSE alterations in the movies. As has been mentioned, it robbed Frodo of the demonstration of his own determination and strength and made no sense at all. For instance, why would Arwen be so upset over a Hobbit she'd never met? Why was she even out there in the woods alone in the first place? And the bit about Frodo seeing Glorfindel glowing in all his splendor gave the reader an insight into the nature of elves that the (exclusive) movie goers did not experience.
Figwit
Book Club Moderator & Misty Mountain Monster
Posts: 1966
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: May 12, 2004 11:16
Personally, I've always felt that replacing Glorfindel with Arwen was one of the WORSE alterations in the movies. As has been mentioned, it robbed Frodo of the demonstration of his own determination and strength and made no sense at all.


I agree that from Frodo's point of view, it's about the second worst change (the first one being Sam): it would have sufficed if someone had just put him on top of the horse and got him to ride to the Ford - that could have been any annoying Elf.

But as far as Frodo goes, the strength of his character is undermined throughout the entire trilogy - it's not just this part (though of course 'By Elbereth' is quite a quote, and one of the most daring stunts of the little man) but it's everything combined that reduces Frodo to the 'ring-bearer' and Sam and Aragorn to the true heroes of the story.

Why was she even out there in the woods alone in the first place?


She was looking for Aragorn, just as Glorfindel was.

And the bit about Frodo seeing Glorfindel glowing in all his splendor gave the reader an insight into the nature of elves that the (exclusive) movie goers did not experience.


Except that in the movie Arwen's glow is even added to because she is wearing a completely different dress - and it is not altogether certain that she wouldn't glow.
As for 'an insight in the nature of Elves that movie goers did not experience', I don't know: I didn't even recognize Tolkien's Elves. They were Sil-Elves, not LOTR-Elves - so the Movie Elf Fans are altogether wrong anyway, with or without the glow.
Celedë_Anthaas
Stargazer of Ithilien
Posts: 1594
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: May 13, 2004 03:43
Maybe Glorfindel has significance in the Sil (if indeed it is the same Glorfindel ), but his significance to the story of the Ring is as good as nihil.

it would have sufficed if someone had just put him on top of the horse and got him to ride to the Ford - that could have been any annoying Elf.

I have to disagree with you on those points, Figwit. It couldn't have been any elf, it had to be a really powerful one, who of course also appears in the books.
That elf would have to live in Rivendell, so it would have to be either Elrond or Glorfindel, or maybe Elladan and Elrohir. The other Rivendell elves are hardly mentioned in the books, except for Arwen, but Elrond wouldn't let his beloved daughter run around in the wild while the Ringwraiths were out there, not after what happened to Celebrían.

Even though Glorfindel doesn't really do much in LOTR, he still shows that there are powerful elves in Rivendell, and that Sauron has a reason to fear Rivendell, other than Elrond having one of the Elven rings.
In the movies, I'm under the impression that the most dangerous thing (for Sauron at least) in Rivendell is an elf lady with a shiny sword who can control a river (and Elrond with Vilya of course, but those who haven't read the book wouldn't know that).
I know Glorfindel doesn't do much in the rest of the book, he just disappears. The first time I read the book I wanted to kick Legolas when he joined the Fellowship and not Glorfindel! (oh man, the fan girls are gonna kill me for that! *goes undercover*)
Morwinyoniel
Gallery Admin & Realm Head of Estë
Posts: 1637
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: May 13, 2004 06:23
First: Why should we put these two characters against each other at all? In the book, both of them play an important but not very big part in the course of events. In the long run, though, Arwen is the more important one of these characters.

Glorfindel is a powerful elf, one of the few that can resist the Nazgûl - but just therefore, he is not the best choice for the representative of the elves in the Fellowship. As Gandalf says to Elrond in The Ring Goes South:
Even if you chose for us an elf-lord, such as Glorfindel, he could not storm the Dark Tower, nor open the road to the Fire by the power that is in him.
He was both too powerful - the Enemy would have noticed his presence - and not powerful enough. So, his part remains quite small.

Arwen's role only comes out in full from The Story of Aragorn and Arwen in Appendix A; otherwise, it is only hinted upon. Yet, from many little things one can get a feeling that she is an important motivation for Aragorn to try something that may prove impossible. She is in the background all the time.

That said, I can well understand replacing Glorfindel with Arwen in the movie. She needs to be properly presented even to people who haven't read the book; Glorfindel, as cool as he is, actually plays not much more than a bit part.

[Edited on 13/5/2004 by Morwinyoniel]
Figwit
Book Club Moderator & Misty Mountain Monster
Posts: 1966
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: May 13, 2004 10:51
You know, I can really see your points Celedë, but what bothers me is the ridiculous amount of 'Glorfindel-fans'. I don't believe it.

Sauron doesn't fear Arwen, but why should he fear Glorfindel?
Why is it so incredible for Arwen to be allowed outside Rivendell? She did travel to Lórien, spent a long time there (while Lórien isn't as safe as Rivendell, or at least that's my impression).
Why isn't Arwen a 'powerfull' Elf if Elladan and Elrohir are?

Again, I do see your points and as Morwinyoniel says in the books this way of presentation works perfectly - but I don't see any problems in terms of replacement (I'm not saying anything about the impact on Frodo) for the movie.
Celedë_Anthaas
Stargazer of Ithilien
Posts: 1594
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: May 14, 2004 03:05
Sauron doesn't fear Arwen, but why should he fear Glorfindel?

Glorfindel can resist the Nazgûl. Even though this doesn't exactly make him very dangerous for Sauron, Glorfindel must be really 'annoying' to him, because he can resist his most feared servants, so he couldn't use them against Rivendell.

Why is it so incredible for Arwen to be allowed outside Rivendell? She did travel to Lórien, spent a long time there (while Lórien isn't as safe as Rivendell, or at least that's my impression).

I think Lothlórien is as safe as Rivendell. I read somewhere (can't find the excact quote, sorry) that Lórien would only fall if Sauron himself came.
And, when Arwen travelled to Lórien, I assume that she had an escort. Elrond wouldn't send her alone over the Misty Mountains after what happened to Celebrían. In the movies she went on her own. I don't think Elrond would let her do that.

Why isn't Arwen a 'powerfull' Elf if Elladan and Elrohir are?

I've never excactly read that she is. Elladan and Elrohir help the Dunedain, they go with them to the Paths of the Dead, they free their mother from the orcs etc. etc.
Arwen doesn't do this sort of stuff. Of course she probably is powful too, after all she has very powerful ancestors. But there isn't anything about her fighting in LotR (if there's something in HoME, then please tell me), she just makes Aragorn a banner, but that was very important too.

I suppose Arwen replacing Glorfindel is OK, but I still think it's annoying (I can't stand changes from book to movie, especially if they're big!).

[Edited on 14/5/2004 by Celedë_Anthaas]
Nienna-of-the-Valar
Loremaster of the Edain
Posts: 578
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: May 14, 2004 03:25
Glorfindel can resist the Nazgûl. Even though this doesn't exactly make him very dangerous for Sauron, Glorfindel must be really 'annoying' to him, because he can resist his most feared servants, so he couldn't use them against Rivendell.

I don't think that Sauron would have sent the Nazgûl against Rivendell anyway. Their purpose was to find the One Ring...if the Ring was not in Rivendell, why would he have sent them there anyway? Granted they did manage to bring fear into the hearts of others, but he did not want to send them far from him, only doing so because he had knowledge that the Ring had been found and was out there somewhere.

Glorfindel, as powerful and 'annoying' as he may have been, did not bear a Ring of Power so if it came down to it, I don't think he could have done much against Sauron's minions.
I think Lothlórien is as safe as Rivendell. I read somewhere (can't find the excact quote, sorry) that Lórien would only fall if Sauron himself came.

I disagree...and so did Elrond, for when it was determined that the lands east of the Misty Mountains and the mountains themselves were becoming dangerous, he sent for Arwen to return to Rivendell. Why would he have done so, if he felt she was just as safe in Lothlórien as in her home?
I've never read that she is. Elladan and Elrohir help the Dunedain, they go with them to the Paths of the Dead, they free their mother from the orcs etc. etc.
Arwen doesn't do this sort of stuff. Of course she probably has some powers to, after all she has very powerful ancestors. But there isn't anything about her fighting in LotR (if there's something in HoME, then please tell me), she just makes Aragorn a banner.

The point that I believe figwit is trying to make is that the twins and their sister are descended from the same parents so whatever 'power' they have, is more than likely inherent to all three of them. We are not talking about 'power' as in 'strength', and even in we were, there is written word out there making it clear that the females of the Elven kindred have just as much physical strength as the males, but obviously they do not all practice weaponry and warfare.

I agree that in the books, there is no indication given that Arwen ever picks up a sword and fights anyone....so? Does this mean she is not as 'powerful' an Elf as her brothers? Nooooo, it just means that she did not fight and really I think daddy was keeping her under wraps in Rivendell and wouldn't have allowed her to go anywhere even if she had wanted to.

But really, what does any of this matter? In the grand scheme of things, Arwen was far more important to the future of Middle-earth than Glorfindel was...there are no ifs ands or buts about that. Glorfindel was more powerful schmowerful...big deal...once the war was over, he left. Arwen stayed and lent her blood to the future generations of men...that makes her more 'important' to me


Figwit
Book Club Moderator & Misty Mountain Monster
Posts: 1966
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: May 14, 2004 04:33
Oh, thank you Nienna, for making part of my point for me .

You know, it's not because certain actions aren't depicted in the book, that they didn't happen. Everyone seems to assume that Arwen needed an escort because of Elrond's fears for her, but where do those fears go when he tells Aragorn that she'll only be worthy of a King? He has faith in her, an incredible faith (and the changes in Elrond bothered me a lot more than the ones in Arwen, if you're talking about the movies), so I don't see why he wouldn't be able to extend that fear.

Of course, everything beyond what is actually written is speculation. But much of what readers consider 'canon' is in fact speculation. The character of Boromir for instance, by most readers considered to be not evil but noble in his own way yet temporarily possessed, was defined by Tolkien as one of the great 'traitors' of the book, he names him in one breath with Saruman!

As for Glorfindel standing up to the Nazgul, so does Frodo: twice, the second time weakened immensely, nearly turned to a wraith himself - but he can resist them! Gandalf can resist them, he fights them on Weathertop, and he fights the Witch-King in Minas Tirith. And of course Éowyn can resist them.
So Glorfindel isn't as unique as he seems to be.

But I also love Arwen :love:.
Celedë_Anthaas
Stargazer of Ithilien
Posts: 1594
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: May 14, 2004 04:38
Yes, but my point is: Even though Arwen is more important than Glorfindel, at least when the war was over, Tolkien made Glorfindel look for Aragorn and the hobbits, and not Arwen.
Even though Arwen is just as powerful as Elladan and Elrohir, she doesn't fight. The book Arwen is a nice, calm person (at least, that's how I see her), and I think they ruined her character in the movies, making her too Éowyn-like.
Because she doesn't do any fighting in the book, I think it's wrong that she fights in the movies.

I didn't mean that because she doesn't do any fighting, she isn't powerful.
Figwit
Book Club Moderator & Misty Mountain Monster
Posts: 1966
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: May 14, 2004 04:54
Well, she might be calm but so is Celeborn for instance, or Elrond - and they fight. I don't see how those two should exclude eachother. She's very Zen.
Celedë_Anthaas
Stargazer of Ithilien
Posts: 1594
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: May 15, 2004 08:54
:banghead: Sorry guys! When I read my earlier posts it looks like I've somehow managed to mix up 'fighting' and 'powerful'. :blush:
Must remember to sleep more...... :yawn:

Anyway, I'll try to explain again, without mixing up things.
Let's see.......

Arwen is just as powerful as Elladan and Elrohir, because they have the same ancestors.
Arwen however, doesn't fight, and therefor I think it's wrong that she went to look for Aragorn and the hobbits. I think most people will agree with me that it's a bit weird to send a non-fighter against the Enemy's most feared servants.
Glorfindel, Elladan, Elrohir and Elrond can all fight. They are powerful, just like Arwen. It would be better to send one of them to look for Aragorn and the hobbits.
Of course the movie Arwen is a fighter, but I think that ruined her character. It would be so much better if the movie Arwen had been a non-fighter too.
I like the book Arwen, but the movie Arwen is just to much like Éowyn, and even though I like Éowyn I think one warrior princess is enough.

I understand that people think it's ok that Arwen did 'the Flight to the Ford', because she was important for the rest of the story, but I still think it's annoying, not only because Glorfindel was left out of the movie, but also because Arwen's and Frodo's characters were changed. If they had used Arwen but without changing her character I wouldn't mind so much. She could have used some glowing light thingy against the Nazgûl instead of a sword and shouting 'If you want him, come and claim him!'. I can't stand that line.

I disagree...and so did Elrond, for when it was determined that the lands east of the Misty Mountains and the mountains themselves were becoming dangerous, he sent for Arwen to return to Rivendell. Why would he have done so, if he felt she was just as safe in Lothlórien as in her home?

Okay, Rivendell is probably a bit safer, because the mightiest of the Elven Rings is there (don't know why I didn't notice this before). I think Elrond also made Arwen come back, because if Lothlórien was attacked and defeated (which would only happen if Sauron came) there would be little chance of escaping. If Lothlórien was attacked from Mordor, that would probably mean that Gondor and Rohan already were defeated and maybe Mirkwood and Erebor too. The Misty Mountains were dangerous, so they would all be pretty doomed.
If Rivendell was attacked however, it would be easier to escape, because Sauron wasn't all around them (except if he had already taken all the lands in the West).

I think I didn't mix anything up this time....
Figwit
Book Club Moderator & Misty Mountain Monster
Posts: 1966
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: May 16, 2004 02:06
I like the book Arwen, but the movie Arwen is just to much like Éowyn, and even though I like Éowyn I think one warrior princess is enough.


But the difference is still huge! Éowyn, bookwise, was a young girl, barely a woman, uncomfortable about her position in life and seeking glory (seeking a meaning for an otherwise meaningless life). Surrounded by warriors with a taste for battle, she finds that their goals should be hers but she kind reach them. She is bitter, cold and unable to see beyond her own fears and doubts.

Arwen on the other hand is a mature woman. She is wise and kind, but she also has an incredibly strong will (she's stubborn) and she makes a daring and dangerous, because uncertain, choice.

Movie Arwen doesn't deviate from this central character. What is added, is one scene where she carries a sword and rides a horse. Why shouldn't a strong-hearted Elvish woman, raised when war is brewing and with her mother being attacked as she was, be able to defend herself? What if she had been trained like her brothers had (not uncommon amongst Elves)? Why wouldn't Elrond send out Arwen like he sends out his other scouts?

Even more: who would have been able to stop this strong-headed woman from riding out and searching for her man when she finds out he's in danger? Maybe Elrond didn't send her, maybe she just left?
vaya
Council Member
Posts: 121
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: May 16, 2004 08:38
I like the book Arwen, but the movie Arwen is just to much like Éowyn, and even though I like Éowyn I think one warrior princess is enough.


Um not really...

Ok this goes back to this thing where it seems like there can only be one kind of strong female character. A kick-ass babe who kowtows to no one, and that all these characters are the same.

They're not.

Arwen draws a sword in one scene, and people start calling her Arwen Warrior Princess. Yeah, there was gonna be that thing where she shows up at Helm's Deep, which would've been so annoying, but they came to their sences.

I think the two characters are more complex than you give them credit for. Eowyn isn't just a warrior chick, she is a complex character, a fighter and a leader, who becomes a healer. Arwen isn't just Elrond's daughter, or Aragorn's love interest, she is a strong spiritual presence. Both characters have strength that goes beyond fighting skills or their weapons.

As for Arwen vs Glorfindal....he was missable, sorry guys, but he was a one-time character who wasn't important enough to the plot, whereas Arwen is essential to the story....I was damned confused while reading the book for as to what was Aragorn's deal with Eowyn? I didn't realize that he had a love yet. So I am glad that the movie gives it more depth.
Celedë_Anthaas
Stargazer of Ithilien
Posts: 1594
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: May 16, 2004 12:20
:killcomp: Argh! I just spent about an hour writing my next post here and my computer deleted everything! I'll just keep it really short this time, I don't want to sit here writing for another hour.

I hate the fact that they turned a non-fighter into a fighter. It's as simple as that.
Maybe Arwen could fight, maybe she was an extremely brave warrior, maybe she could resist the Nazgûl and do some serious damage to them, but who cares? She didn't do that in the books, so why should she do it in the movies?

And I know that Arwen and Éowyn are different characters. I've read the books you know.
I just needed someone to compare fighter-Arwen with (just the fighting, not their personalities).
When Arwen shouted 'If you want him, come and claim him!', I was reminded a bit of what Éowyn said to the Witch-king.
That's all.

And I don't think Glorfindel is missable. He's part of Tolkien's world, and that makes him important enough.
If we could just remove any unimportant characters and give their roles to other characters who are already important, that would ruin the story completely.

And as for your questions about why Arwen couldn't carry a sword and fight, my answer is simple: Because Tolkien didn't make her!

I think I'll just post this now, I've got the funny feeling my computer is going to delete this again....... :killcomp:
vaya
Council Member
Posts: 121
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: May 16, 2004 01:46
Argh! I just spent about an hour writing my next post here and my computer deleted everything!


Oh, I'm sorry et:

I hate the fact that they turned a non-fighter into a fighter.


Hardly a fighter. Sorry, but I am a gaming geek and I say she's not a fighter. There are several character classes that allow you to hold a sword and parry to defend yourself that aren't fighter. I have two healers, one of whom can wave a sword around, probably as well as Arwen was, she's definately not a fighter.

She didn't do that in the books, so why should she do it in the movies?


Plot convenience. What? Well, you got one character who we never see again, and another who is later important to the plot, but barely mentioned in the book. Now those of us who read it know what's going on, but the ones that didn't are going to be confused as all hell. As I was when I read the book the first time.

And really, it's a change that I can live with, at first it annoyed me, but I saw why he did it, and eventually came to peace with it.


I've read the books you know.

I believe you. I didn't say you didn't.

I just needed someone to compare fighter-Arwen with (just the fighting, not their personalities).
When Arwen shouted 'If you want him, come and claim him!', I was reminded a bit of what Éowyn said to the Witch-king.
That's all


really? I mean what Arwen does is a challenge to get them to cross the river so she could throw some magical mojo at them. Eowyn challenges the witch-king to a fight, to stand between her uncle and pure evil.

One's a plan the other is desperation. The characters have different motivations (although in both those scenes they are protecting something preciousssss...) different things driving their actions.

Arwen wasn't challenging the nazgul to a fight, Eowyn was.

And I don't think Glorfindel is missable.


Wait, who is that?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

And as for your questions about why Arwen couldn't carry a sword and fight, my answer is simple: Because Tolkien didn't make her!


Yeah, and he added a whole endless chapter of Frodo and Sam crossing Mordor, and an uneccessary bit about some guy in the forest.

Jackson couldn't do a blow-by-blow word for word adaptation, he had to take liberties. Like I said, this is one that's relatively minor in the grand scheme of things.

I don't think Arwen was too different from the Arwen in the book, a character who is barely mentioned I might add. I mean, how do you know Arwen never picked up a sword in her life? She had brothers. She had eternity. Ya get bored!
Figwit
Book Club Moderator & Misty Mountain Monster
Posts: 1966
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: May 16, 2004 10:33
Aw Celede, I know how you feel (post-wise) it sucks. :hug:

I guess you stick to the book quite literally, but that would be very suffocating, even for a bookie. I mean, take me and my Boromir thing for instance: Tolkien thought of Boromir as a bad guy. He even says so in his letters. If that's the end of the story, then why did so many people feel there was more to Boromir? Because there is.

The text isn't the last word: there are nuances, references, insinuations... there's a character that takes shape behind these words, and characters (personalities) simply aren't finished wholes.

As for her picking up the sword, she is the image of Lúthien. In everything: in her defiance, in her love, in her beauty, in her appearance to Beren / Aragorn... so why not in her ability to fight?
elvishmusician
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 405
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: August 04, 2004 03:30
I say go GLORFINDEL!!! I think he would have been great in the movie. If you think about it its pretty unrealistic to have Arwen in it anyway.

She is her fathers only mentioned daughter and the Evenstar of her people as if Elrond is going to let her go looking for hobbits in the face of the Nine Ringwraiths? Come on.

I do however think i know why they used Arwen. It is because in the actual book (excluding the Appendix) there isn't a lot said about Arwen and Aragorn's love for each other. I mean most movies have romance in them and I think they needed that in LOTR and so they gave Arwen a bigger role and that is why she appears the hero instead of Glorfindel. Also if they didn't put more of Arwen in the people who haven't read the book wouldn't have understood. I can't help wondering if they could have done it another way, maybe had a flash back to when they met or something.

At least don't give Glorfindel's part to Arwen! He was soooo much better!!!
Celedë_Anthaas
Stargazer of Ithilien
Posts: 1594
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: August 05, 2004 04:46
A flashback would have been great. Maybe when they reach Rivendell Aragorn and Arwen see eachother and then suddenly a flashback of when they first met. And then maybe in TTT there could be a flashback of them in Lothlorien so that people who hadn't read the book remembered her.
And the "I want to stay! - No, you're going! - Alright, I'll go to Valinor"- talk in TTT could've been cut out. I thought it was annoying because Arwen had already made her choice.
Nefhiriel
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 24
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: January 17, 2005 12:38
I suppose there's really nothing I can say in the defence of Glorfindel that hasn't already been said... But, yeah, if Elrond had sent someone other than Glorfindel I'd of thought it would be Elladan, Elrohir, or some other elf - but Arwen? I've heard rumors that she just stole that horse and rode from Rivendell without permission Thats seems rather OOC for the Arwen of the books!

Well, I sure missed that elf in the movies. LOL, but then I missed Elladan, Elrohir, Gildor... *sigh* It's too bad so many great characters (and scenes) had to be left out!

- Nefhiriel <><
LadyEowyn_Of_Rohan
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 749
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: January 17, 2005 02:24
But, yeah, if Elrond had sent someone other than Glorfindel I'd of thought it would be Elladan, Elrohir, or some other elf - but Arwen?
He could've sent out Elladan and Elrohir too. In the book, a few Elves were out looking for Frodo, to give a much higher change of finding him before the Nazgûl.

As for Glorfindel vs. Arwen: Glorfindel is really awesome, but Arwen is more interesting. If I had to leave my life in someone's hands, I'd pick Glorfindel; if I got to talk to one of them for an hour I'd probably pick Arwen. Arwen wasn't in the books much, but Glorfindel had much less character development.
Nefhiriel
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 24
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Glorfindel vs Arwen
on: January 18, 2005 07:06
Well, yes, Elrond did sent out a couple of elves, possibly including Elladan, Elrohir and others. What I meant was that he could have sent out any combination of elves, but his daughter, in all likelihood, wouldn't have been among those sent.

Of course, that's just my opinion There are so many things in Tolkien's works, and the movies, that are debatable! I guess in many things it's just each of us to our own liking

- Nefhiriel <><

[Edited on 18/1/2005 by Nefhiriel]

EDITOR'S NOTE: I am sending this thread from Books to the Movie Forum as it is more appropraite there. Thanks everyone. ~ cirdaneth

[Edited on 5/5/2007 by cirdaneth]
12
Members Online
Print Friendly, PDF & Email