|
Post by Lady Elwen on Mar 11, 2005 13:53:41 GMT -5
Right, and then there's Arwen playing Xena: Warrior Princess. Thank you very much, but I'll pass. Since when did the graceful, quiet, poised Elven princess take her place in battle, brandishing a sword and miraculously avoiding tripping over a long skirt?
Much as I hate the whole "XenArwen" comparison, I have to say, it makes some amount of sense, and that's rather pathetic.
I have multiple complaints about the actual version of the Deep - for one thing, where on Earth was Eomer?? What was he doing taking Erkenbrand's place? And why was Eowyn in the caves? Why wasn't she at Edoras?? Thanks muchly, but I liked Aragorn and Eomer fighting together, and I'd hoped to see that onscreen; the two don't get a lot of interaction onscreen, and that bugged me. And why'd they replace Erkenbrand? Up to a point, I can even understand replacing Glorfindel - he doesn't do a whole lot after the Ford, but what's with everyone else? The twins, the Dunedain, Erkenbrand, half the Riddermark? Um, hello........
But alas, all I can say is that Peter Jackson and New Line would have probably had a lawsuit on their hands for defamation of the classics if they'd actually put Arwen into Helm's Deep as a warrior.
I'm sure most of you saw that sequence in the extra footage on TTT EE, and while seeing Arwen interacting with Galadriel and seeing the grandmother/granddaughter relationship would have been nice, it's not enough. I'd have liked to see Elrond in Lothlorien, and the entire sequence might have played out, but Arwen as this warrior-heroine? No thanks...
Even sending her off to the Havens and having Elrond and Galadriel mind-speaking was a bit much... But having (even filming!!) Arwen as aiding Legolas in pulling Aragorn and Gimli up the Deep wall on a rope? Fighting side-by-side with Aragorn on the ramparts against the Uruk-hai?? Talk about desecrating the classics! Forget about Tolkien turning in his grave - had that reached the theaters, he may as well have stood up and begun walking!!
Arwen was never meant to be some fantastical warrior princess. She was meant to be the quiet, wise driving force behind Aragorn's destiny and final decisions - his hope for the future. Instead, she became some character that completely exaggerated her persona. The film isn't Arwen. Arwen isn't herself in the film, and if we're sticking to canon, that just isn't right.
~ Elwen
|
|
|
Post by Varda on Mar 14, 2005 17:28:42 GMT -5
Right. If this weren't a rated board, I'd probably be cursing right about now... which I don't do often, either, but this is one of two things that have me absolutely over the top. I hate saying "XenArwen" as well, but unfortunately, there's nothing else to really describe her character. Having her at the Ford was bad enough (I guess I'll move that to another post later...), but what's with the Deep? I'm just so irritated, that it was even considered to put her there. Arwen is not meant to be some warrior princess. She just isn't. Why does she carry Idril's sword, anyway? I get that Elrond would have carried it (thank Eru that there's no actual mention of Elrond's sword in the books), but why Arwen? She never even has a sword when it comes to canon. Granted, she doesn't really have that much of anything in the books, but why did they pick a sword, of all things, to give to her? I have no idea why Helm's Deep was so... mangled... I really wanted to see Erkenbrand on screen - that would have been really interesting, with the two large companies of Rohan coming on either side. And, agreed: I'd have really liked to see Aragorn and Eomer fighting together at the Deep, since they don't really see one another at the Pelennor until Aragorn arrives with the Corsair ships. And Eowyn... she should have been back at Edoras to be able to meet them at Dunharrow the way she was supposed to. I guess it worked, having her at the Deep, and it "increased tension" between herself and Aragorn, but it wasn't the worst thing they did; I've seen worse, and that wasn't the weightiest of changes. Irritating, but hey. Lawsuits? Oh yes... I certainly would have been part of that if they'd actually put her there. I'm desperately glad that she wasn't there, vastly irritated that they even thought to put her there, and will leave it at that before I say something I regret. ~ Varda
|
|
Angel
:~TOA~: Fellowship
.+*Elven Beauty*+.
Posts: 60
|
Post by Angel on Mar 16, 2005 2:47:17 GMT -5
Being a really big Arwen person, you can understand that i wouldn't mind seeing more Arwen scenes in the films, but...the Helm's Deep concept was just a bit too much.
I managed to get relieved from the shock when i saw FotR the first time at the cinema. But yeah, i must admit, i was expecting a blonde MALE elf to come lol not the opposite. Altho i can see the confusion online when many new Arwen fans said how they love her character then they hear all the controversy on how its not sticking to the book. That's the problem now days, you've still got sooo many fans of the films who havent read the books. So they sometimes don't see why things in the movie are actually 'wrong'.
I've got the pictures of Arwen all dressed up and fighting at Helm's Deep, and at the first glance i was absolutely appalled. I did wonder in one of the many interviews the cast did, why Liv mentioned something about 'training and sword fighting'. (this was after FotR)
Arwen's not supposed to be a shieldmaiden or be a warrior princess (lol). Tolkien never intended her to be, and she shouldnt of been. Having her fighting and battling and out being a heroine isnt her role, it's Eowyn's. What i didnt like of this kinda portrayal is that it gives the world a 'comparison' of the two women. Making more strain between Eowyn and Arwen fans - of which many havent read the books. So now we have people trying to compare the two VERY DIFFERENT women by their 'heroic' deeds. Which we all know very well that that isn't what Arwen is all about.
~ Angel ~
|
|
|
Post by TOA Management on Apr 27, 2005 3:31:56 GMT -5
Arwen is.... Arwen is freaking annoying, is what she is... What's the point? She's like.... there to show up and marry the other hot guy... What's up with that? So she's suddenly tied into the Ring and her weird dad doesn't want her to marry? No, I don't. Why's she here? She needs to go and do something other than appear at random points where she doesn't need to be and kiss Viggo. She's annoying and stupid. The story would have got along just fine if she just disappeared and Aragorn could've married the other blond lady...
|
|
Elbereth
Ranger
~The light of Il?vatar lives still in her face.~
Posts: 190
|
Post by Elbereth on Apr 27, 2005 15:01:36 GMT -5
Then allow me to pose a question to you, Libby: have you ever read the books? And moreover, have you ever read the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen?
If you had, I highly doubt that you would be saying such things. Though there are many canon-fans that dislike Arwen, forgive me for being so blunt but their reasons for said dislike are typically much more solid.
As has been stated throughout this post, Arwen is not a physical embodiment, for the most part; she is the driving spirit and hope that propells Aragorn toward his destiny.
Throughout the books and the films (yes, I am aware that this is the film board), Arwen is present to show that essence that holds her hope and beauty and love. That is more apparent within the films than the books in terms of concrete appearances because of effect: having her appear and developing her character is far better an approach than throwing her in to marry Aragorn at the end.
Most canon Tolkienites have problems with what has been done to Arwen's character, taken in relation to the book, but in terms of her appearance onscreen, most will agree that she portrayed the Elvish essence quite well.
Her film character has been vastly altered, but that does not make for lack of worth. She is not there to simply "show up and kiss Viggo"; she is there to profess the love and hope that does not fade. She is pressed by extreme odds, knowing that she will lose her chance at immortality, to stay with the man she loves.
Without Arwen, the chances that Aragorn would have remained solely a Ranger, never partaken on the Quest, and therefore never met Eowyn ("the other blonde lady") are quite high. He was not destined to marry Eowyn, and her approximated reasons for love are not the same. She saw him as someone who could draw her from her status as the plain "woman" figure of Meduseld and fell in love with the rugged character. Undoubtedly, prospective Queen of Gondor did not hurt.
I do not attempt to make Eowyn sound like a power-hungry, selfish witch - on the contrary, I like Eowyn - but taken in context to love of Aragorn, it does not fit. As Elwen has begun in another thread, it is not fit or wise to compare Eowy and Arwen, for there is little there to truly compare without stretching the wires.
~ Elbereth
|
|
Lady Adara
Dwarf
.:~:. Adara's Rose .:~:.
Posts: 71
|
Post by Lady Adara on Aug 25, 2005 21:50:56 GMT -5
Eowyn and Arwen are not to be compared. It is about the same as comparing a rose to a dandelion or a daisy or some other flower. It simply does not work. Eowyn is a Shieldmaiden, a woman of Rohan, and a woman born to fight with all that she holds. Arwen is an Elven maiden, raised in peace, and her strength does not lie in the ability to bear arms, nor should it.
Arwen at Helm's Deep would have shattered her character even more than the films did. At least the released versions of the films kept Arwen out of full battle - the only visual display of her power was at the Bruinen, and even then it could have been considered overreaching.
Arwen is a symbol of hope, and that is her power: she is Aragorn's driving force - something for him to return to and hope for. Without her, chances of his despairing are much higher.
And moreover, Aragorn was never fated to be with Eowyn. As he said, she loved but a "shadow and a thought" - an image of glory and power and prowess that could draw her from her place as a "lady of Meduseld". For a shieldmaiden, especially to her, that was no sort of life.
Both were played to contrast each other, both in the books and films, and both were necessary. New Line and everyone there took too many liberties, but alas, there is naught we can do of it. Rohan and the Deep were not in any way what should have been, but putting Arwen in amongst it would have been ridiculous.
~ Adara
|
|
|
Post by Mithwen Delbaeth on Sept 10, 2005 11:32:19 GMT -5
I agree. I hate Arwen, and if Arwen had been at Helms Deep I likely would have strangled PJ. I think Arwen was over-played in the movies. After a while I was like, "Okay! I know that Arwen loved Aragorn! Can we have book scenes now?" I missed Erkenbrand, though I kind of prefer watching 2,000 horses galloping down a steep hill than the same amount of men running. It is much more dramatic. But Eomer should have been at Helms Deep.
I heard someone say that if Arwen had come to Helms Deep Eowyn would then know Aragorn could never love her, and lose one of her motivations. She might not even have had enough motivation to go to the Pellanor. Therefor Arwen would likely steal another person's role and take Merry to the Pellanor and kill the Witch king. If that had happened, I'd "be much more than mad..."
But now, it seems, as on all Arwen threads, I must argue:
I don't think Eowyn fell in love with Aragorn because he could pull her out of the status of 'woman'. In Aragorn she found respect, something she didn't have much of.
Mod Note: edited for content
|
|
|
Post by miniSlayer on Sept 20, 2005 18:18:47 GMT -5
As much as I love Slayering, people like that...
Just get on my nerves.
And XenArwen would have really ruined TTT for me. I was already grumpy that the Elves came, so Arwen coming too would have been too much. PJ would have miniSlayer on his hands...
|
|
Elbereth
Ranger
~The light of Il?vatar lives still in her face.~
Posts: 190
|
Post by Elbereth on Sept 20, 2005 23:39:52 GMT -5
Mmmhmm... Well said miniSlayer. If a coherent thought isn't possible, please just stop thinking... *mutters*
Arwen at the Deep... It makes no sense. She isn't some warrior princess - that just doesn't fit with her general embodiment. How on earth can she just show up and make it work? Elf, yes. Superhuman genius, no...
~ Elbereth
|
|
|
Post by miniSlayer on Sept 22, 2005 21:08:44 GMT -5
How on earth can she just show up and make it work? Elf, yes. Superhuman genius, no... ~ Elbereth *wills self not to put in a comment about how she seems to supernaturally puts herself in every ten minutes* To me, XenArwen is undermining the character of Eowyn. Eowyn is the strong, warrior maiden in the books. Arwen is the loyal support. Mixing the two would be like eliminating one.
|
|
Eilian
Hobbit
.:~*~:. Rainbow .:~*~:.
Posts: 37
|
Post by Eilian on Sept 22, 2005 21:33:11 GMT -5
I think "every ten minutes" is a bit of an exaggeration, don't you? She's there, but at least it's not as though she's translocating herself across country constantly... Dream sequences really aren't that unusual, and one would expect her to be present at her own home...
As for undermining Eowyn, yes, you're right in a way, but not in that she's undermining her per se. Eowyn is the shieldmaiden, yes, but Eowyn is Eowyn and Arwen is Arwen. Putting Arwen in as a stronger warrior is not necessarily eliminating Eowyn's place, primarily because Eowyn's warrior persona is much stronger, but rather is to highlight Arwen's that was never drawn upon.
To "Tolkienites", Arwen shouldn't be in battle at all - she IS the loyal support, and that's where she should stay as far as we know. We can speculate about what she does, but as long as it's not written in canon, it gives us the license to DO that in the first place.
~ Eilian
|
|
|
Post by Ahrianna on Nov 14, 2005 2:21:27 GMT -5
*wills self not to put in a comment about how she seems to supernaturally puts herself in every ten minutes* To me, XenArwen is undermining the character of Eowyn. Eowyn is the strong, warrior maiden in the books. Arwen is the loyal support. Mixing the two would be like eliminating one. Haha... I think "every ten minutes" is overexaggerating... just a bit... ;D I mean, hey, her fiance is permitted to dream about her... Her father's allowed to talk about her... She's allowed to be at home... I think... Maybe... I would hope so... Hehe... But yes, well said - mixing the two is like compromising the other, and that just isn't right. Arwen is never meant to be the warrior at all - she's Aragorn's love and hope and strength. Eowyn is the embodiment of female physical strength, breaking through bonds of protocol to become who she wishes to be, and so should it stay. ~ Ahrianna
|
|
|
Post by miniSlayer on Jan 14, 2006 10:43:42 GMT -5
Sure he's allowed to dream about her, but uh... why does her kissing him on the banks of a river revive him suddenly? Grace of the Valar isn't exactly transferable. *bashes head* Wrong topic for that.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Elwen on Feb 18, 2006 15:06:00 GMT -5
I have to laugh and agree: Grace of the Valar ISN'T transferable!! ;D
Admittedly, the kissing him on the banks of a river is rather bizarre, but it certainly isn't the strangest thing anyone's ever done...
Ah, well, back to point, Arwen is Arwen, and the day she picks up a sword and goes into battle to chop Orcs to pieces is the day Tolkien may as well rise from his grave again and start haunting the idiot that makes that decision! Arwen doesn't belong in battle, plain and simple, and that isn't a random sexist statement!
~ Elwen
|
|
|
Post by miniSlayer on Feb 26, 2006 18:11:08 GMT -5
Yes! *highfives*
I can see Tolkien rolling now... I think he's knocked over some tombstones...
|
|