Debate 1

Okay, the issue is Peter Jackson’s decision to give Arwen the part that in the book belonged to Glorfindel.

On the one hand, no movie is exactly like the book it’s based on. Certain things must be altered in order to make a good movie. Giving Arwen a larger role added to the films significantly. It gave us more insight into Aragorn’s decision. This was an essential part of the movies, and without it they would be on the brink of plotless.

On the other hand, J.R.R. Tolkien wrote it so Arwen’s role was rather small. We credit him as being a genius, and in my opinion he is, there must be a reason for this. And, let’s face it, Glorfindel was an interesting character. Some of us were extremely excited about seeing how he would be portrayed in these movies. Then to go to the theater and have him cut completely? I’m sure many people were disappointed, to say the least.

Debate 2

The Scouring of the Shire is probably one of the biggest changes that Peter Jackson made. He cut out a reasonably large part of Return of the King. Was this a good change? The world may never know, but let us begin to weigh the two sides.

Peter Jackson was completely right; the Scouring of the Shire was a second ending. All of the characters gathered at the first ending for Aragorn’s coronation, why not let this be the only ending? Most of the loose ends had been tied. This was a legitimate way to end this trilogy that we have grown to love.

But (you just knew there was a but, didn’t you?) this was an important contributor to character development. All through the trilogy the focus was on Aragorn and Frodo mostly. The Scouring of the Shire put the spotlight over to Merry and Pippin, who had been slightly ignored. It showed the thing they were fighting for-the shire-put into grave danger, and it gave Merry and Pippin a chance to shine, to “show their quality.” It also gave a nice ending to poor old Saruman, who didn’t have a single minute of screen time in the theatrical version of Return of the King.

Debate 3

Tom Bombadil is one of the most loved characters in the books, in my opinion. Why would Peter Jackson cut him out completely? They didn’t even mention him!

Those chapters in the Old Forest weren’t exactly the most interesting chapters in the book. I know a lot of people who skip them completely. They slowed down the story. If they were going to take away some of the suspense of the film, they had good reason to cut it.

He was an excellent character. My own brother was named after him. Also, the Hobbits got their swords from the Barrowdowns. The very sword that killed the Witch King of Angmar was found there. Leaving all of that out, Bombadil and his boots, Old Man Willow, the Barrowdowns, all of these things were crucial parts of the story. I don’t know why he cut them out completely. He could have slimmed them down a bit; I think that would have been great. To have Tom and his wife, and Old Man Willow, but not make it nearly as long as it was in the books.

by Elbereth339 and DiamondxOfxLongxCleeve

Print Friendly, PDF & Email