I bet some of you watched the first 30 minutes of Angel in the WB on that Monday some time ago, waiting..
The theatrical trailer of The Fellowship of the Ring, some sweet eye-candy MMMM. Were the Nine sweet or what! However..
Near the end in the middle of the river Ringwraiths in the bank Frodo on the back of Gildor's? horse with Arwen in the saddle. And.. Wait a second... Arwen in the saddle? Holdup now, Arwen wasn't in that scene, she was first introduced at the Last Homely House (briefly) AFTER the river scene. A discrepancy, in the TRAILER!!!
It makes me wonder, if they have a discrepancy in trailer, what about the whole movie? I can understand discrepancies that involve editing scenes to condense the movie, but this has nothing to do with that at all. Could they perhaps be expanding the role of a minor charcter to fit the poplular actress?
I shudder to think what discrepancies might be in the movie.
November 5th, 2001, 12:46 PM
To have Arwen instead of Glorfindel(?) in OK by me. LoTR is by far too big a book to edit for three movies (ab. 6 hrs) and some things must be edited out and some things must/can be changed and made into other character(s).
Since there aren't that many strong or interesting female characters in the original, making Arwen a more active person in the movies is an understandable decision. As a longtime Tolkien-fan, ex-vice-chair of the Finnish Tolkien Society and one of the founders of FTS, I can live with it.
Though I'm sure that some hc-fans and purists are outraged and hopping mad.
November 5th, 2001, 05:01 PM
Although I am mad that Arwen was thrown into a scene she wasn't meant to be in, its more of the REASON for it. I mean Liv Tyler is a popular actress, and that great for her, but I think that this popularity may have something to do with her expanded role in the film. If you look in the media, you see "Liv Tyler" this and "Liv Tyler" that EVERYWHERE. They make her out to be a main character, which she is most definintly NOT. This is the reason that I am mad, that they would expand the role of a minor character just because she is a famous actress.
November 5th, 2001, 09:58 PM
Dominus I think you are confusing cause and effect. They expanded Arwen's role because LOTR is almost devoid of women, and the producers obviously wanted a stronger women in it (besides Eowyn). After they had strengthened the part they casted it accordingly.
Expect other changes too, with a material of such a huge size they have to leave out minor character (Tom Bombadil), subplots, and merge other minor characters (Arwen will take over not only Glorfindel but Elronds sons too).
If you want to see the book, read it and imagine it, the movie has to work on its own.
November 6th, 2001, 04:49 AM
I can live with Arwen absorbing Elrond's sons, but I think that changing anymore than that would be plain stupid. The only strong female character Tolkien wrote in the trilogy was Eowyn, and I think it should be kept pretty much the same.
November 6th, 2001, 07:31 AM
If Tolkien had a big flaw with his great novel, it was with women. Tolkien never understood women and said so, and created a classic with minimal female characterizations. (We wanted to do a "LoTR -pin-up calendar" some years ago back in Finland. And we did manage to find twelve female-characters from LoTR, but it was a tough job!)
Now, if Jackson & co. can pull off Arwen as a major female lead, more kudos for them. As a big time movie, LoTR almost NEEDS a female lead. It's film-maker's decision and I'm saving my aggravation for time after Dec 19th, if needed. The thing is that not everything written works the same way on the big screen. Or in every era.
Or maybe I (and the film-makers) are terribly wrong and "creating" a stronger Arwen-character was a huge BIG mistake... We'll see.
On the other hand, I completely understand your beef with the actress. Hyping LoTR as a Liv Tyler -movie is just ghastly beyond belief, a bit like with The Man in the Iron Mask. It was supposed to be this star-studded-cast of Malcovich, Irons, Depardieu, Byrne doing Dumas' Classic, but after Ti***ic went ballistic, it became Leonardo DiCaprio -movie!
Liv Tyler would not have been my choice for the role, but then again, I have this bias against mediocre actors. She looks very good on the trailer though.
And it's NOT a trilogy. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif
November 6th, 2001, 01:37 PM
Yeah, you're right, it would be better to wait and see the movie before saying anything about it (I was dumb). Still, one point that is important is that there was a change, and though induvidually it was minor, the implication that it could mean many more changes is somewhat disheartening.
November 7th, 2001, 01:48 AM
Hands up all those who hoestly expected that there wouldn't be any changes????
What matters is whether the changes make it better/worse........
......we shall see. Personally i have high hopes.
November 7th, 2001, 12:08 PM
...and that's going to be for a long time 'till December! http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
January 6th, 2002, 08:03 AM
Since she didn't ride with the Fellowship, I am happy. *g