I first read Lord of the Rings when I was 11 or so. Loved it. I’ve seen the animated films, and enjoyed them, and I’m really looking forward to the coming new release live action.
Or, I was until I saw the commercials. Live Tyler is playing Arwen. Now, she’s attractive, and elfish looking, not a great actress though. I wouldn’t have any problem with her in that role.
You see, in the actual books, Arwen shows up for like two pages. She’s Elrond’s daughter and hangs out in Rivendell.
That’s not what the commercials are telling me is happening. Arwen is apparently the lead role. This pisses me off to no end. Why are they screwing with these books?
I’ll tell you why. Because Lord of the Rings essentially has no meaningful female characters. So they’re tampering all to hell with the books to insert this unskilled actress into the key scenes.
Remember the great scene where Frodo is wounded and alone, riding for the river with the Nazgul in pursuit? He makes it across, but they’re too close and they transfix him while they start to cross the river. Frodo just sits there, alone and unconscious while the Nazgul wade out to claim him.
It’s a great scene.
In the commercial that doesn’t seem to be what happens. We got Arwen riding along with Frodo during the chase, and standing in the middle of the river making speeches.
It’s like the whole Jar-Jar Binks thing. You just knew it was gonna ruin the movie.
Jar-Jar ruined Star Wars and now Liv Tyler as Arwen with a fake english accent is gonna ruin one of the great classics.
I wouldn’t worry too much about it, Scylla. Many Tolkein fans have gotten up into arms about this earlier, but I’m pretty sure that the makers of the film put to rest most fears. It seems that all of Arwen’s appearences are actually the same as they are in the book, except that she replaces Gorfindel (did I even come close to getting that name right?) in the river ford scene.
I’m looking forward to seeing the movie, but this is making me a little nervous.
Mind you, if Tolkien sent LotR to a publisher now, he’d get a letter back saying, “You’re blowing a good female lead in Arwen, and you’re not giving enough foreshadowing about her and Aragorn. It comes as too much of a shock to the reader at the end. That appendix isn’t any help either.”
Just do what I am going to do and avoid the movie like the plague. I plan on sitting in my basement with my fingers in my ears going “la la la la la” for the next few years.
I refuse to let some stupid movie ruin the books for me forever.
What jester and tavella said. Tolkien actually wrote a few real strong female characters, just not in LOTR. Varda, Yavanna, and Luthien come to mind. Also Morwen, and Haleth, one of the leaders of the Edain in the first age.
And Tolkien did do a lot of extant writing on the relationship between Arwen and Aragorn, only a little made it into LOTR proper, even the appendix. If they draw on that stuff, and I think they do, I really don’t care much if they substitute her for Glorfindel. After all, she is the daughter of Elrond, and the granddaughter of both Earendil and Galadriel, a descendant of Beren, Turin, and a scion of the house of Finwe. Not to mention 5 generations removed from Melian the Maia. Heck, if Luthien was able to defeat Sauron himself in magic combat, and charm Morgoth, I think Arwen her descendant (who is called the image of Luthien returned) should be able to give a few nazgul
pause.
Two questions that you can ask about any book made into a movie:
Why is [minor female character in the book] getting such a big role in the movie?
Tits.
Why is [untalented actress], of all people, playing [minor female character in the book]?
Tits.
Works every time.
Why is Arwen, a minor character, getting such a big role int he movie? Tits.
Why is Liv Tyler, of all people, playing Arwen? Tits.
This ain’t moviemaking like it was in the 50’s, kids. Much as we’d like the idea of the story selling itself, it ain’t gonna go in this day & age. Ya gotta have eye-candy for the adolescent boys (or those who think like them) in the audience, or they won’t come back and see the movie again.
Thank you, Scylla. All this time I thought I was the only one who noticed that for 3 books and 1,200-some pages, all Arwen gets to do is–die. And that’s not even until the end. The VERY end. The absolute ass-END of the end.
That’s her big moment, where she goes and lays herself down and dies. And it isn’t even in the BOOK–it’s in the Appendix, fa cryin out loud. Appendix A, to be sure. :rolleyes:
And Liv Tyler is “NOT” Arwen, I don’t care who her daddy is and how hot both of them are this year.
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT.
In 50 years, people will look back on this casting and go, “–Who?” the way they look back on the casting of Billie Burke in The Wizard of Oz. “Oh, she was married to one of the studio heads or something, wasn’t she?”
The only reason I am going to see the movie is because I ADORE Ian McKellan and I’d pay to see him dress up like The Rock and recite the Tulsa phone book.
Heck, if Arwen replaces Glorfindel and a few other minor elvish characters then that would be fine. Movies have to merge characters all the time, or the cast would become mind-bogglingly huge. As long as Arwen doesn’t go with the Fellowship, or show up defending Rohan then it’ll be fine. Glorfindel had no real personality anyway, he was a generic elf, his only function was to show up and save the li’l Kuduks at the ford.
You have to collapse speaking roles. There should only be one speaking elvish retainer at Rivendell, might as well make it Arwen. There should be only one speaking Rohirrim soldier. There should be only one speaking soldier of Minas Tirith. There should be only one speaking Ithilien raider. And so on. Pick the most interesting character in these categories and give them all the lines and functions of all the other one or two line characters in the book.
That is smart film-making. Of course, maybe they didn’t follow my rules and the movie will suck. But why worry about it? Either the movie will suck, or it’ll be cool, or it’ll be sort-of OK. Either way, who cares?
I never could understand why people get so upset when a movie doesn’t hold to the book on which it was based or to how we think it should have been done.
If you don’t think you’re going to enjoy a filmmaker’s take on a classic, save your $8 and stay home and watch “Survivor.”
The only one who should have any cause to complain would be the original author, and even then, that author can’t complain much if he or she sold the rights without making it clear what his or her wishes were in regards to the movie. J.K. Rowling appears to have thought enough ahead on this and made her influence count.
Moviemakers are storytellers, at least they should be, and as such, are going to want to change things to their own vision, whether its casting, story, setting or the size of a character’s breasts.
Singers are criticized when they cover an old tune and don’t “make it their own.” Why then are filmmakers blasted when they do make the story their own.
I don’t know if I’ll make it out to see Lord of the Rings when it comes out, but if I do go, I’ll let the filmmaker tell his story, and then I’ll decide whether I liked it or not. Frankly, I’ve never had cause to complain about Liv Tyler’s tits.
I already have a ticket for the 19th if that tells you anything.
I have seen movies that diverged significantly from the book, and were great movies. I have seen movies that followed the book almost to the letter and sucked monkeynuts. I make a prediction today, some people will like the movie, some people will not. I go to the film with eager anticipation and a very vague concern that there might be some things I won’t like, but generally an open mind about it. I refuse to judge the movie without seeing it first. Based on the previews it loos excellent.
Most people would probably like to disregard my opinion though, since I’m the one who likes The Phantom Menace, and thinks Attack Of The Clones will probably be a worthy addition to the Star Wars saga.
JonScribe What upsets a lot of people when books get made into movies is that the books are often fantastic stories written by true artists. The movie industy tends to produce a lot of idiotic garbage, regardless of how much money is spent, and how much time is taken. The mixing of the two can work, if the movie makers trust the book that the story is based on.
Too often movies take great scenes and delete them, or change them when the original was fine. Case in point [sub]Ok, it’s not a classic book…[/sub] Patriot Games by Tom Clancy. When I read it I immediately thought “great movie” it had lots of action and a cool final scene, with shooting, cliffs, crashes and a boat chase. The movie? Some stupid crap with night vision goggles. I was like what the fuck are you doing with that great scene Clancy wrote? Did they even read the damn book?
Tolkein is a genius, I’ll trust his storytelling ass way more than some movie guy. If you need to trim scenes for time, or consolidate some very minor characters, fine. Please, don’t introduce more characters, or write new scenes, or change the outcome of anything. I for one, will not re-read the books until after the movie. I read them long enough ago that if the movie butchers it, I may not notice.
In Bored Of The Rings he was “Garfinkel.” I’ll just call him that. Anyway, after seeing the clip of Liv Tyler rescuing Frodo I thought the situation was even worse than all the fanatics in the Tolkien newsgroups made it sound (WHAT? NO BOMBADIL!?), but I’m glad to know Arwen’s just replacing Garfinkel in that one scene, and not taking over the movie.
It should also be noted that, according to early reports, most of Arwen Undomiel’s scenes are faithful to the story of Arwen and Aragorn in the appendix.
And, succinct as it is, I don’t believe rastahomie’s theory is entirely correct. The presence of a strong female character will help draw female movie-goers.
I agree with Scylla. The scene at the Ford of Rivendell is one of the best moments in the entire work: Frodo, alone and dying, facing the horror of the Nine (“To Mordor we will take you!”).
Glorfindel plays a role in the resolution of that scene, but Frodo doesn’t even know that until later. And that’s why the scene is so powerful: Frodo being so utterly alone against such terrible enemies.
If Arwen simply replaces Glorfindel in this scene, and it is skillfully done, perhaps I’ll be able to accept it. I agree that movies need to take certain logistical liberties, but skilled directors do so without compromising the point and vision of the book (and its critical elements).
If I see Arwen riding on the back of the horse horse across the ford, patting Frodo on the shoulder and shouting “Let’s rock and roll!” at the Nazgul, I will be pissed.
Well, many of his peers in the Oxford English Dictionary busniness, and in the field of language consistantly referred to him as a linguistic genius, even when they didn’t like him very much. So I guess yours is a minority opinion.
[goes to sit in minority opinion corner with GuanoLad]
[scoot over, bud]
It’s a superb piece of storytelling–but then so is Stephen King’s The Dead Zone. Tolkien concocted a tremendously compulsive page-turner, but he was working with pre-existing archetypes and myths, the same way Stephen King works with archetypes and myths. Frodo and Sam and the rest of the Shire are clearly identifiable as denizens of the Victorian myth of the “English rural past”, with its honest, sturdy rustics, as all of the Elvenkind are equally instantly identifiable as their Victorian mythic counterpart, the “noble aristocrats”. In keeping with their “yeoman” stereotype, Frodo and Sam are short and sturdy and full of common sense, and they say rustic things like, “It’s an ill wind that blows nobody good.” And the Elvenkind, in keeping with their “aristocrat” stereotype, are tall and “fair” and speak in long, flowing sentences.
And plug in the Riders of Rohan as the standard “noble barbarians”, and some characters from Norse and Teutonic mythology (dwarves, giants, Treebeard embodying the Teutonic “tree spirit” , etc.) and various stock character bad guys, and you’ve got your basic trilogy.
I’ve always been fascinated by the fact that Sauron, this supposedly hugely evil bad guy, is just as inept as the head of a ring of bank robbers whose getaway driver forgets to put gas in the car. And that, too, is a stereotype, that the Bad Guys are always slightly incompetent, that sooner or later they make a mistake that gives the Good Guys an edge.
So Tolkien may have been a “linguistic” genius, and all those made-up languages are pretty impressive, but “genius storyteller”? Nah.
I don’t know what you guys are talking about, William Shatner is so the best actor ever. I mean look how popular Star Trek is, and how it has spawned an entire sub-genre of science fiction.
:rolleyes:
For what its worth, I think Tolkein was a genius. But then again, I’m also a 26 year old man who buys comic books, plays Dungeons and Dragons and watches Anime. I like to think that I’m self-aware enough to recognize that it is just possible that my own personal worldview may have slightly tinted my judgement of Good Ol’ J.R.R. ("My God, that. . .that’s Sauron’s music!!)
Shouldn’t your own enjoyment and love for the books be enough? I find myself asking that about a lot of the things that entertain me, and that have their own staunch defenders. I mean, what does anyone really gain by convincing someone (who presumably has read the books) that Tolkein was a genius? Did I miss an issue of Starlog? Is there a t-shirt give away involved? Cause there isn’t much I won’t do for a free t-shirt.
Tolkein isn’t GuanoLad and Duck Duck Goose’s particular cup of tea. I think Joss Wheedon is the Anti-Christ. My roommate doesn’t get Babylon 5. So what? The fact that someone else doesn’t share my definition of entertainment is something I’ve long been used too and it really doesn’t bother me.