Long they laboured in the regions of Eä,

[Karl Henning]

There is a good dramaturgical element in Jackson's use of Arwen for that scene--it makes you know that Arwen is endowed with her own Power, as a Lady of the Elves, and why Aragorn loves her--instead of the book, in which she's more or less a stock figure.  But Jackson did not need to come up with the little sequence in which she's dying and sent off to the Grey Havens, and then turns back just before it's too late....
Nor (I reminded myself of this after I posted last night),  did we really need to see Legolas skateboarding along the Oliphant fighting Southrons and Orcs for ten minutes.

All good considerations, Jeffrey.  I do wonder whether Elrond (Tolkien's Elrond, I mean) would have let his daughter fare abroad to contend with the Nine, when one of the few things we know about those close to Elrond is that his sons never forget their mother's torment in the dens of the orcs.

In general, though, the "need" on the scriptwriters' part to create a larger character for Arwen (as with so many of the other embellishments) makes me smile, thinking of the Monty Python skit "Scott of the Antarctic," where they play fast and loose with historical (and at times, geographical) fact, for dramaturgical purposes . . . .

Some degree of objection to "the larger Arwen" is related to the "pouty Aragorn" they've made.  As with their destruction of the (in Tolkien) indissoluble bond of friendship between Sam and Frodo, so that they have Frodo send Sam home at the connivings of Gollum . . . it seems that Jackson &al. just don't like the idea of characters of noble and good heart (one of the things which ultimately preserves Frodo against the invidious influence of the Ring, though of course he falters in the Sammath Naur).  I suppose that in writing the script, they "decided" that the characters as Tolkien created them were not "interesting," so they took it upon themselves to create "real" characters . . . .

[DavidW]

(I'll go ahead and say, too, that I thought the Battle of the Wizards scene struck me as a bit tawdry. And that, arguments that this or that arguably essential element of the story had to be cut, in order to make a movie, grow weaker with each superfluous addition, like the B. of the W.)

The battle of the wizards was out right stupid.  Both of those wizards are powerful... in subtle ways, not let's brawl.  I think it was put in to respect 7 minutes rule but seriously this is one of many places where the concept of magic in Middle Earth is either disregarded or completely misunderstood.

[DavidW]

Sauron should resemble a very tall, very powerful and very terrible man. Retaining, moreover, the scars of his few defeats in combat, the missing finger and whatever marks, presumably about his neck, that remained from his tangle with Huan.

Given the way that Sauron showed an amazing gift to worm himself into the confidences of the Numenor, I imagined him as deceptively handsome looking innocent and beautiful while he is of course at heart not.

[Karl Henning]

One small thing, which I should agree is not a crucial detail lost in the movie: Gandalf was actually on Weathertop three days ahead of the hobbits & Aragorn, where in the movie I think that in the midst of that they cut to the next stage of Gandalf trying to escape from Orthanc.

Here, I have got to hand it to Jackson &al for a good cinematic decision:  inter-cutting the story of Gandalf's imprisonment is not only good in terms of the parallel narrative, but it reduces the amount of information which needs to be delivered at Rivendell (in the book, Gandalf explains his imprisonment at the Council).

[Karl Henning]

Given the way that Sauron showed an amazing gift to worm himself into the confidences of the Numenor, I imagined him as deceptively handsome looking innocent and beautiful while he is of course at heart not.

Yes, early in the Second Age, he could still make himself appear fair, hence his deception of the Elves of Eregion, e.g.

With the destruction of his physical being with the fall of Númenor, he lost that ability.  As with Melkor/Morgoth in the Elder Days, over the duration of his rebellion there is diminution and limitation of his powers.  Though still, at the time of the War of the Ring (and while the Ring endured) his power was terribly great.

[DavidW]

There is a good dramaturgical element in Jackson's use of Arwen for that scene--it makes you know that Arwen is endowed with her own Power, as a Lady of the Elves, and why Aragorn loves her--instead of the book, in which she's more or less a stock figure.  But Jackson did not need to come up with the little sequence in which she's dying and sent off to the Grey Havens, and then turns back just before it's too late....
Nor (I reminded myself of this after I posted last night),  did we really need to see Legolas skateboarding along the Oliphant fighting Southrons and Orcs for ten minutes.

Those silly Arwen scenes were just really to remind us of her existence in the second and third movies.  I didn't really like them but they weren't too long.

You might not like it, but I still remember on opening day the whole theater cheered when Legolas brought down that Oliphant!   And everyone laughed when Gimli said "that still counts as one!"

Anyway about Arwen-- I miss Glorfindel but she was a good addition to the way too man-centric epic.  Girls liked her so much that many dressed as her for Halloween.  I don't think I've seen a movie that was so guy dominated since Star Wars.  Expanding on Arwen's role was a good thing.

[Karl Henning]

. . . Expanding on Arwen's role was a good thing.

I should say, could have been a good thing, if done by script-writers with better knowledge of and/or respect for the source book.

I should have liked to see Tolkien's Arwen, and not Danielle Steele's.

[kishnevi]

Those silly Arwen scenes were just really to remind us of her existence in the second and third movies.  I didn't really like them but they weren't too long.

You might not like it, but I still remember on opening day the whole theater cheered when Legolas brought down that Oliphant!   And everyone laughed when Gimli said "that still counts as one!"

Anyway about Arwen-- I miss Glorfindel but she was a good addition to the way too man-centric epic.  Girls liked her so much that many dressed as her for Halloween.  I don't think I've seen a movie that was so guy dominated since Star Wars.  Expanding on Arwen's role was a good thing.

Legolas vs. The Oliphant was mighty fine movie making. As was Legolas's heroics in front of Helm's Deep.    But it was rotten Tolkien, if you know what I mean.

I do think Jackson actually did a better job at showing what was going on during the siege of Minas Tirith, in terms of the city being bombarded, etc.  than the books themselves did. 

But if this thread continues much longer,  I'll be hating the Jackson movies.  It keeps reminding me of all the bad changes he made.  I had forgotten about the argument between Sam and Gollum, which infuriated me.  But even there there's a dramatic benefit,  by demonstrating up front Gollum's sneaky conniving nature.

[Karl Henning]

I really dig the Unfinished Tales, too....

[eyeresist]

cutesipoo touches like "nobody tosses a dwarf"

Ah hah - let me explain that line for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_tossing

The director's commentary in the special extended DVD edition of The Fellowship of the Ring debates whether the sport originated in the United Kingdom or Australia. The director's commentary goes on to say that the writing team did not realize that dwarf tossing is not as common in the United States and other regions as it is in New Zealand, and thus did not anticipate that many fans ultimately did not know what the joke was referring to.

[Karl Henning]

Thanks!  I knew what the joke referred to, actually; it was just obviously an alien intrusion, the fourth wall broken and all that jive.  Jackson's quite the wanker, isn't he?

[Karl Henning]

Legolas vs. The Oliphant was mighty fine movie making. As was Legolas's heroics in front of Helm's Deep.    But it was rotten Tolkien, if you know what I mean.

Word.

[snyprrr]

Snyppps beat me to it

And I thought I was a nerd : http://brunching.com/images/geekchart.pdf

I need more charts like that!

[Karl Henning]

Please assure me that there are actually no people who get married "in Klingon garb" . . . .

[Karl Henning]

Please assure me that there are actually no people who get married "in Klingon garb" . . . .

(* chirping of crickets *)

[Karl Henning]

I seem somehow not to have marked it in my first pass through the Jackson movies . . . but then, since I watched them in reverse order, and this is an incident at the fag end of the first movie, by then I may have been a little Jackson-fatigued.

But after Boromir tries to intimidate Frodo into giving him the Ring (since he refuses to join Boromir in Minas Tirith), there is then a Jackson invention, a meeting between Frodo and Pouty Aragorn. Blecch.

[DavidW]

Certainly Karl you can broaden your imagination for this thread and do more than just complain about the movies.  Tolkien has a legacy that extends beyond the blockbusters of yesteryear.

[Karl Henning]

Other limitations have been at play, and so I deny that it is any matter of limited imagination, Davey. Still, one takes your point.

[chasmaniac]

In the Ainulindalë, music becomes vision, then the vision is made solid: "Eä, the World that Is". How do music-lovers react to such a creation story?

[Karl Henning]

Quite individually, I should think. It is marvelously evocative!