Forum

Please can everyone just agree to disagree, or if something really bothers you that someone else has said, turn a blind eye. This is one of those 'touchy' threads, containing people's opinions about why they did not like Arwen and/or Liv's portrayal of her. If we cannot all be civil, the thread will be closed.

Thank you!

Why I hate Book!Arwen.

Then he says he's to be the King of Gondor someday. Suddenly, she warms to him. (...)
Later, they meet in Lorien. Aragorn goes to her, looking very kingly. They get engaged. But there's a catch! Arwen doesn't want some smelly Ranger. She wanted a KING. (...)
Many say that, "she was obeying her father." No. It was HER OWN CHOICE! If she REALLY loved him, she would rebel and elope with him.

When Aragorn was off on a life- threatening quest, Arwen stayed in Rivendell, comfy and cozy.

What does she do for her "twoo wuv"? She sews a banner. Big deal.

Few years later, Aragorn is dying. And Arwen tastes the bitterness of mortality. She begs and pleads with him to stay with her BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T WANT TO DIE ALONE!

Now, I feel the need to talk about her choice. She's already lived for 3,000+ years. She's seen more of life than we mortals can fathom. She saw how her father suffered being mortal. Elrond and his brother Elros were given a choice by the Valar: to live as a mortal or immortal. Elros chose mortality. Elrond's children also had this choice. Only Half-Elves were given this decision. Tolkien stresses that Elves, even the VALAR envy the "gift of mortality." So, Arwen had this gift and she used it to her advantage. Big deal. She sacrificed living forever. Who REALLY wants that? I don't, that's for sure.

I'm not going to get into why I hate Movie!Arwen.

But I think the way she wanted to die was noble. She could have thrown herself off the balcony of Edoras. But she wanted to die defending her people and doing something. Yes, she was suicidal. But she knew that she was doomed. And, as someone stated before me, death was better than enslavement.

I think it's a pity that a lot of people can't appreciate a character that Tolkien only meant to be nothing but good. After all, I don't think he wanted Aragorn, one of his main characters on the side of good, to have spent his life with a shrew. After all, as quoted in appendix A: "As Queen of Elves and Menshe dwelt with Aragorn for six-score years in great glory and bliss..." I ask you: How can Aragorn live with her in blissif she was as bad as you book and movie Arwen-haters say. Here's a rebuttal for all those book and movie Arwen-haters.:

It used to be that I didn't really like Arwen that much, I didn't have any feelings about her either way. However, that was before the vehement and, at times, utterly non-sensical Arwen-bashing started. Because of all that nonsense, I've actually ended up liking her.

I can understand not liking a character, people have different tastes, that's fine because life would be boring if everyone liked the same things. I can understand being ambivalent about a character, especially Arwen, because that's how I felt about her before the films came out. However, I cannot for the life of me fathom why people get so irate and hateful towards a fictional character. I don't like character bashing, it's irrational, it's nasty and at times, just downright ignorant. Some of the reasons that I've heard for why Arwen sucks make my brain break, they really do. Observe:


1. "You can only be an Arwen fan if you haven't read/didn't understand the books."

That's so insulting and inaccurate, it hardly merits a response. Maybe Arwen fans are less simiplistic; they understand that film and book are completely different media and thus have to be treated in different ways. Ever think of it that way? No of course not.

Ok, that *is* pretty generalized and insulting. I know many Arwen fans who are well-versed in the works of Tolkien. However, there are also so many Arwen fans out there who don't do much to improve your image. For example, I saw a few fans who insisted that Aragorn and Eowyn were siblings.You do have a good reason to be annoyed at that reason though. For the record, I have no problem with most Arwen fans

2. "Liv Tyler isn't even pretty."

Oh yeah. I mean, if I looked like Liv Tyler I don't know how I'd live with myself. She's HIDEOUS.[/sarcasm]

That's pure opinoin, and people have different opinions about what's beautiful and what's not. For me though,I thought she seemed too fake when she was trying to act etheral and her voice bugged me. But that's just my opinon and that's not even really a reason I dislike Arwen.

3. "Arwen takes screen time away from Frodo, Aragorn, Eowyn, Elrond, Gandalf, Bill the Pony, Gandalf's hat..."

Arwen has about, what, an average of 10 minutes per film? Probably less. Considering each film is about 3+ hours long, that's not a massive amount of screen time. Get over it. If you want to talk about a love plot being over-played, look to Eowyn. IMHO, they over-did Eowyn's obsession with Aragorn far too much, to the point that it seriously damaged the plausibility of her love for Faramir. The padding-out of Arwen's part was mild in comparison.

How many times did she appear in the book? How many times did she appear in the movie? I don't mind her having an extended plot, but I didn't like how they choose to extend it. For example, the storyline of Arwen's fate being bound to the ring was unnecessary. If the ring wasn't destroyed, Sauron would eventually get it. If Sauron got the ring back, everyone would have a lot more to worry about than Arwen wasting away.

And how can Arwen POSSIBLY take away screen-time from Elrond? In the books you see him in Rivendell and then again right at the end. If anything, the boosting of Arwen's role gave Elrond MORE screen time. And, being the hopeless Elrond/Hugo Weaving fangirl I am, I was all for that.

4. "She cried all the time. She's weak. She's girly."

Sooo...the only way a woman can be strong is to act just like men? Sexist much? Also, Eowyn spends a lot of her screen time crying, making big cow-eyes at Aragorn, hanging on his every word, disobeying Theoden's orders etc. Those are not exactly the actions of an emotionally strong woman. Arwen on the other hand, sticks to her guns, remains dignified, retains a good relationship with her father despite the conflict. Arwen ain't weak, she's anything but weak.

Um...what do you mean by "sticks to her guns"? Because if you mean she isn't swayed, you are wrong. If you'll notice, she confidently tells Aragorn that she will not change her mind and she chooses a mortal life. Elrond manages to convine her to leave Middle-Earth by reminding her what it means to "choose a mortal life", which she should have known. She loses her resolve and is pursuaded to leave Middle-Earth. She changes her way halfway there because of a vision and can't even be bothered to tell her escorts. (Escorts? I thought you said she was a brave girl and travelled dangerous paths between Rivendell and Lothlorien alone.)

5. "The padding out of Arwen's role is disrespectful to Tolkien's vision, they should have stuck to the books instead of making up stuff for Arwen to do, it's wrong to have her fighting, it's wrong to have her steal Glorfindel's role. Tolkien wouldn't have wanted it."

This argument is a little more sophisticated, so we must tread this morass carefully.

First of all, books are not like movies. You can introduce background information in a book much more easily than you can on film. Film is a visual medium, you can't mention important character points in passing, you have to SHOW them, otherwise there's a risk that the audience won't pick up on them in a single viewing. Tolkien could afford to put informaton in appendices, to passively fill out the back story of Arwen and Aragorn; PJ couldn't do that. You can't have a character go through a nine-hour movie and then right at the end introduce this random chick and have him say, "oh, btw, this is the love of my life who's giving up immortality to marry me. Cool huh?" It wouldn't have worked, the audience would have felt cheated. Bear in mind that these films weren't just made for book fans, they were made for people who knew nothing whatsoever about Tolkien.

The Glorfindel thing, yeah, I like Glorfindel. It's a shame he didn't make it into the film. But, again, character amalgamation is a neat trick for getting across as much information in the shortest time possible. It isn't the first time this technique has been used in adaptations, it won't be the last. Let's face it, Glorfy comes into it to give Frodo his horse and he doesn't come into the story again. For a film, it makes better narrative sense to cut the chaff and give his role to a character who will re-appear.

ok,but why did Arwen have to be given Frodo's glory of facing the wraiths? And if she did, why did she have to take Elrond and Gandalf's glory at summoning the river?

Thirdly, one of my favourite scenes in the Two Towers is the scene where Elrond warns Arwen what will happen if she stays. That scene was book canon through and through, it was straight out of the appendix. It was so beautifully, cleverly and artfully done, the canon nay-sayers should be jumping for joy that an obscure Tolkien passage was put centre-stange, instead of bitching about Arwen being on screen.

I have an idea. Why couldn't they use that scene to show how strong Arwen was? Elrond goes through with his speech, beautifully, artefully, and straight out of the book. We see all the same footage. At the end of it though, Arwen tells him that she has made her choice and she will wait for Aragorn. That scene is the biggest reason I hate MovieArwen. She went back on her word to Aragorn which shows a lack of thinking on her part.

As for Arwen fighting, when do we ever actually see her fight? Never. Not once. We see her draw a sword, we never see her use it. It could have been bluff for all we know. Yes, a Helm's Deep section was filmed but the film makers saw the error of their ways and to her credit, it was Tyler who pushed for her to be feminised a little more. "You don't need to put a sword in her hands for her to be strong." Amen sister.

Well when she drew the sword, it implies that she can fight. And actually, Helms Deep wasn't included because word of it leaked out and they found Tolkien communities dissing the idea of Arwen fighting and worried that it wouldn't be recieved well.Technically, they did put a sword in her hand and justified it saying seeing Arwen fight and take a more active role makes it seem more likely that Aragorn would like her. So much for that.

6. "Eowyn would have been better for Aragorn. I'm an Aragorn/Eowyn shipper, Arwen got in the way!"

*points to the above argument* *brain breaks* >.<

Now do you want canonical accuracy or not? Which is it going to be? CONSISTENCY, PEOPLE!

I love the possiblity that could have been Aragorn and Eowyn as Tolkien first intended. I know thats not canon and I also love Eowyn and Faramir.

7. "Arwen said she scorned mortals. She was a BIG MEANIE to the people she was Queen over! What a bitch!"

*bangs head off desk* No, no, no, no, NO! She was talking about the Second-Age Numenoreans who declared war on the Valar because they desired immortality, she wasn't talking about the Fourth-Age Gondorians. *sigh* It pays to do research before you shoot your mouth off.

Those are the arguments/outbursts/ignorant rubbish that annoy me the most. If it wasn't for these outbursts from the anti-arwen crowd, I probably never would have got thinking about this stuff and would never have gained a new appreciation for Arwen.

Congratulations Arwen-bashers. You've turned me into an Arwen fan. Be proud.

Well when she drew the sword, it implies that she can fight. And actually, Helms Deep wasn't included because word of it leaked out and they found Tolkien communities dissing the idea of Arwen fighting and worried that it wouldn't be recieved well.Technically, they did put a sword in her hand and justified it saying seeing Arwen fight and take a more active role makes it seem more likely that Aragorn would like her. So much for that.

But the reason she's going back is because she knows she's going to have a child. Why wouldn't she go back for Aragorn's sake? Why only for Elboron? I mean, she must love the man if she's going to bear his child, but seriously, the film sets it so that, in my eyes, the only reason she goes back is to have Elboron (and an unknown number of daughters, I might add).

I wouldn't have minded Arwen having a smaller part in the films at all, and I don't think it would have cheapened their romance. Take Sam and Rosie. Rosie appears all of... two times? Maybe three, I can't remember. But she's always on Sam's mind. She is a driving force behind him, and having her out of the films doesn't cheapen their romance at all, now does it?

So either they misspoke or they intended Arwen's motive to go back to be having kids. Well she can have kids in the Valinor if that's all she wants.

Erm... wouldn't she come back for Aragorn?

The sword wielding warrior princess I saw in the Fellowship of the Ring was, to me, a complete antonym of [a beautiful, gentle, graceful noble-woman]

I really disliked the fact that Arwen summoned the powers of the river. If Elrond and Gandalf, one of the most powerful Elf-lords of all time and a Maia (both of them Ringbearers to boot), had to work together to raise the Bruinen, I doubt that an ordinary elleth with no magic powers to speak of (besides the magic weaving she did for Aragorns banner) coud've done it.

Also, Arwen leaving in Return of the King. For me that ended any romantic allusions of her as a 'symbol of hope and devotion'. To me she seemed from then on to be a thoughtless child who had made a promise impulsively without any thought and then, when told what the consequences would be, got herself the hell out of there. 'Nothing left her in Middle Earth'? What about Aragorn, the supposed 'love of her life'?

Not to mention how rude it was of her just to ride off without answering Figwit's questions. The polite thing to do would be just to say 'Sorry but I have to go back to Rivendell' and then ride off.

Arwen is not elderly and shouldn't be compared to an elderly person today because her sitituation is not the same. She does not feel old, as the book says she was "was not yet weary of her years." I don't think she was old for an elf, who don't feel time as humans do.

A lot of the reasons why elderly people feel like they have nothing left to live for is that they really do have very little to live for. Most (not all) elderly people are not working, and are actually feeling the physical effects of old age (memory loss, poor health, dependancy, etc.). Also, they know they've naturally drawn close to the end of their natural lifespan.

Arwen's loss was only Aragorn. Faramir outlived Eowyn for some time and their love was no less true. You may argue that Aragorn and Arwen knew each other longer, but for Arwen's case, 60 years of waiting and 100 years of being together isn't long for an elf.

never having the chance to defend her people,

That's not true. Théoden gave her that chance when he placed her in charge of his kingdom before going off to war. That she ignores the people who need her to lead them to ride into war, shows that she is not a warrior who wants to help her people, but in fact a very selfish young girl. And I'm not saying that because I don't like her, it's part of the strength of her character that she's got an interesting psychological drama going on there, but I think it'd be very wrong to see her as some sort of feminist, because that's not what she's about.