Arwen in the movie!!!!!!

[Memnoch]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ezekial:
I know they don't copy the book exactly (I did say words to that effect), I just can't agree with them changing characters in scenes, thats all.

I have no problem adding stuff in, or missing bits out ('cept maybe the barrow..ONLY the barrow, not even Tom). But you can't change characters in a scene from the book, then call it a recreation of the book..you can only say its BASED on the book, and give it a different title (take Blade Runner for example..its BASED on Do Androids...)

---

That's why it's called an adaptation of the Lord of the Rings, not a reproduction. I still think it will be great.

[Sir Moosington]

Hi - first time in this forum.

I have to admit to being puzzled. Many people rate this book as the best fantasy book ever. Period. The Times book review rated it the book of the century saying the world is divided into those who have read LOTR and those who are going to.

Pretty heavy accolades. So why do they feel that it needs to be changed? Missing scenes out I can understand - even I find Bombadil boring, but I don't see any benefit to giving Arwen a larger role. It's not like more people are going to see it as a result.

I guess my beef is, if a book is so obviously great and read by so many what gives a movie maker the right to think he/she can do it better?

[Legolas]

That's because there's a big difference between texts and images. Where Tolkien gave wonderful descriptions in text, you cannot transfer them to the movie, for example. The text places the focus on certain aspects of the surrounding area, whereas in a movie you see the entire area. There are techniques to make certain things stand out, but the effect is not the same as in the book.
The same goes for the characters. In a way, they are much more complicated in the book. In another way, much simpler that in a movie. You cannot make a movie like the book, so yuo have to make changes.
Now we all know Arwen is there mainly because directors know romance works well in films. Tom is left out because he is too strange a character to capture on the screen. The barrows were left out, probably because they follow the Bombadil part, in fact, Tom comes to their aid there. And it's not too hard to let the hobbits go over the road instead of through the woods.

[Wulfere]

They have to give audiences what they want and at the same time keep the movie flowing and dynamic. The romance between Arwen and Aragorn
is hinted at in the books but never given much more than that. Mainly because he wasn't writing a romance. Tolkien was writing the history of the Ring. The trailers are wonderful and I think they may have captured the spirit of the books. If everything is not exactly as in the books then so much the better, a few surprises might be just what we want. We just don't know it. Peter Jackson did warn us all months ago that there would be more of the romance than in the books. He also said that he was striving mightily to maintain the feel and spirit of the story.
He is a Fan of the books as well.

December 19 is the opening night for the 1st movie. That is a Wednesday. I personally plan to be there and judge for myself.

[Sir Moosington]

I can understand changes due to technical difficulties or concepts that don't translate well. However you said it yourself LOTR is not a romance, nor was it ever intended to be and is none the worse for it.

IMHO adding romance to the film is just a pointless plot twist to hang trailers on and make the film appear to be something which (hopefully) it isn't.