"you don't have to put a sword in her hands to make her strong." kinda wish certain other productions not even related to Tolkien's works would realize that fact

@ruan13o

7 ай бұрын

Yes, this! There is such a lazy trope of films that a 'strong' character has to be able to physically beat others up whether it's with fists, swords, arrows, guns etc. It's such a boring, single dimensioned, and toxic trope. I know Liv Tyler isn't the most well respected actress but well done to her for saying that and pushing that concept. It's become worse in recent years where lead female characters are just playing to the same old toxic trope of a strong man. Don't make female characters into toxic men, make them into strong women.

@NPzed

7 ай бұрын

This! Modern writers would do well to heed these words from Liv!

@andrewtran8442

7 ай бұрын

but they **did** put a sword in Liv Tyler's hands

@ruan13o

7 ай бұрын

@@andrewtran8442 You're being too literal. The point is that the films did not emphasise her as a bad ass warrior in the way it does for Aragon or Legolas. In the one 'fight' scene she had across the three films she didn't stand and fight the Ring Wraiths like Aragon did, she ran away from them and then used her magic to call on the river. Then for the rest of the film her strength and agency comes from her wrestling with the choices of being elf or human, and from choosing her own path when her father is one of the most powerful and respected elves in Middle Earth. Contrast this to the Hobbit films where they just made Tauriel really good at fighter. She became a way less interesting character even though she had more screen time than Arwen in the LoTR films. Tauriel became a elf that's 'worse than Legolas' whereas Arwen is not a character that's 'worse than Aragon'. She has more of her own character.

@andrewtran8442

7 ай бұрын

​@@ruan13o ypu're totally right, but i just found it funny that the quote is about not putting a sword in arwen's hands even though arwen wielded a sword

I don't find Haldir's death meaningless at all, he sacrificed his own immortality to defend the world he believed in. That's a powerful message.

@michaelnurse9089

7 ай бұрын

Thank you.

@ruan13o

7 ай бұрын

I personally agree that his death is not meaningless BUT... if you look at it solely from the perspective of the film, his whole character and what happens to him is fairly meaningless. From his introduction into the scene we can tell he and Aragon must have had a great friendship but we never see or hear about how that came to be. You don't see much of him from that point until the point where he dies. So you haven't come into the film as a fan, or as a person who has read the book, then it just seems random. You could pretty much have shown any elf die in slow motion and got the same result. Your point above him sacrificing his immortality to defend the world he believed in is something extra you, as the viewer, has read into the scene that doesn't actually exist in there. When he comes he talks about honouring the alliance but that line itself is not clear whether he's here because he actually believes in that alliance or whether he's been ordered here on that basis by his commanders. Look, I like Haldir, I like he's in the film but ultimately his 'story' (if you can even call it that) in the films is very weak.

@gilgameshricardo3867

7 ай бұрын

I mean that's just his physical body. Elves have immortal spirits.

@Steppeponytail

7 ай бұрын

The elves at Helm’s Deep still managed to be pretty annoying. You spend time in the introduction and during the film making it pretty obvious that there already was a *last* alliance of elves and men and that the elves are largely done with Middle Earth and then they say ‘Naw…never mind, let’s have a last round of dying pointlessly’. It was weak.

@Bwkjam

7 ай бұрын

I think it’s a stand in because we don’t really see the pitcher fronts elves are fighting on in this war. The elves were weak and depleted by this war, but there was still some strength.

Bro I’m so glad this trilogy was shot 23 years ago and not now. I don’t even want to think what they’ve done with LOTR nowadays.

@stevestapleton7924

7 ай бұрын

Or even the hobbit trilogy 🤢

@drewidlifestyle7883

7 ай бұрын

@@thebatman8895Rings has the bonus problem of getting rights to like half the source material. They shouldn’t have made it. It’s a decent fantasy series but a terrible middle earth story.

@oatlord

7 ай бұрын

​@@thebatman8895was going to say that. You don't have to wonder. Although I do think there were a bunch of rookies at charge there. Let's see what season 2 brings.

@KakosBananas

7 ай бұрын

Probably they would have replaced all the main characters with "strong females characters" (Mary Su)

@gxkdykxiyx1985

7 ай бұрын

Half the characters would be black, such as Gangdalf or Gimme-yo-wallet-li

Haldir's death meaningless? You take that back. He was the embodiment of loyalty and sacrifice. He didn't have to be there, but he chose to be. He brings relief by contradicting Théoden who said, "the old alliances are dead." That's beautiful.

@michaelnurse9089

7 ай бұрын

He represented Lothlorien - Galadriel most importantly. This also has meaning in the context of the film.

@jmunt

7 ай бұрын

when I watched these movies the first few times I was always like "why are they making such a big deal out of a random character we just met" and it seemed incredibly pointless to me and arbitrary to make a big deal of this one particular elf when plenty of others were dying too. When my girlfriend watched it for the first time, when Aragorn was rushing to save him, she literally asked it was supposed to be Legolas with like a distorted face or something, cuz she was so confused why else they were making such a big deal about it if it was some other random elf. I feel like this scene only has any impact if you know more lore and have extra info beyond the movies themselves

@Paddythelaad

7 ай бұрын

Thank you for speaking up for mah boi.

@TomCruz54321

7 ай бұрын

@@jmunt Yeah we recognize this detail because we've seen the movies 75 times. But the first time I saw this movie he was just an extra with one line of dialogue.

@georgestauber2636

7 ай бұрын

Exactly. He sacrificed himself for men.

I was an extra at Helm's Deep (a Rohan, an Elf and an Uruk-Hai; yes, I still have the t-shirt that says "I survived") and, from memory, the scenes with Haldir were shot in the original filming in 2000. You implied in your narration that the decision to take Arwen out of Helm's Deep was after Fellowship came out. Definitely not. In fact, we ended up doing more work at HD because we had to reshoot some of the Haldir scenes.

@hunam3876

5 ай бұрын

​@@leighhoffman9425 LMFAO

@svenfrencisco9800

5 ай бұрын

Thank you for your service to cinematic history.

@groguuuyoda9479

20 күн бұрын

🫡

Arwen's greatest moment is when she returns to Rivendell after her father ordered her to go to the Undying Lands. She starts to obey him, has a vision of a possible future. turns back and then tells her father to reforge Anduril for Aragorn. All this shows incredible strength, courage and wisdom without needing to have her actually engage in a battle.

@enigma9971

7 ай бұрын

Except Aragorn had the sword for the entire quest in the book.

@WigganNuG

7 ай бұрын

@@enigma9971 which makes the movie decision actually look better than the book, but only for the movie, if that makes sense. Know what I mean? I mean that whole scene was fucking EPIC, and gave me chills. It was a GREAT idea to change up from the books.

@user-nz6dx2fj6h

6 ай бұрын

Yes but that was Peter the Blob Jackson’s version. So no need to gush about it, ok?

@Arcahnslight

6 ай бұрын

@@user-nz6dx2fj6h Weaksauce ad-hominem.

@dennisdose5697

6 ай бұрын

The fact that she even decided to leave, in the movie, weaked the character of her love for Aragorn. It made it shallower. Elrond was rather petty in the film, and Aragorn was too uncertain. Jackson didn't understand the characters very well. I don't think he really understood any of the characters well, actually. The altered handling of Narsil/Andruil was a needless mess. It did nothing to improve the plot and just annoyed the Tolkien fans.

The books were expertly translated to film and as much as I enjoyed Arwen’s increased agency I think being at Helm’s Deep would have been too much. Agree with the point about it affecting Eowyn’s story and that shows how they had a deep respect for the source material. Peter Jackson’s LotR trilogy is adaptation done right.

@kilianortmann9979

7 ай бұрын

Absolutely, he didn't turn the books into movies, he adapted them to an entirely different medium, there was no way to do Glorfindel justice within the trilogy.

@guitarmaven6916

7 ай бұрын

"Never toss a dwarf!

@egoraptorschin9412

7 ай бұрын

​@@kilianortmann9979 Glorfindel has anime protagonist power level

@DJSockmonkeyMusic

7 ай бұрын

The only thing I didn't like was the change to Faramir, who was NEVER tempted by the One ring in the books. I understand every other change, in the context of translating massive work into film. But Faramir was entirely unnecessarily changed, and it undermines a truly selfless character. Faramir was done dirty.

@bookman7409

7 ай бұрын

I have some issues with Jackson's take (Gandalf's reversal of preference at Moria, and Saruman being the one directing the snowstorm, rather than Sauron, f'rex), but I had no problem with his team's treatment of Arwen. Yes, I knew when it came out that Glorfindel was an extraordinary character in the books, but other than his intervention during the flight to Imladris is just background and texture in the story. If Arwen was going to be something more than a token in a film with few female characters of note, she had to be as much of a Somebody as her mother and Eowyn were, or she'd just replace Glorfindel as a token texture/background character. I say that not as an activist, but a life-long fan of Tolkien's universe. I also understood why Bombadil had to be skipped, since film can't support long conversations without action that add little to the progression of the story. I love the Bombadil sequence, but it can't be done in a movie, and the achievement by Jackson and his team will probably never be bettered. So I say good enough, even with its diversions from the books, and better than most the vast number of book-to-film adaptations out there.

Tolkien did flesh out the relationship between Arwen and Aragorn in the appendices - Jackson made the decision to move that into the main story and enhance it.

@AnnaMarianne

7 ай бұрын

Yes, and Tolkien wanted to add Arwen into the main narrative, but because most of the story had already been written before Tolkien invented her character, he found it impossible to craft her into the main narrative anymore.* So he had to content himself with including the story of Aragorn and Arwen in the Appendices of RotK. *Tolkien wrote the story all the way to the beginning of RotK before he decided that Aragorn and Éowyn don't work as a couple, and decided to come up with a new love interest for Aragorn, and pair Éowyn with Faramir instead. That's why there's so much more of Éowyn than Arwen in the story, even though Arwen is technically The Girl.

@maxpiemuse9584

7 ай бұрын

I would not say enhance. Nobody can enhance Tolkien.

@kittycat0876

7 ай бұрын

This is done with all tv shows and movies a love interest

@mechadoggy

7 ай бұрын

@@AnnaMarianneHmm, so I wonder how Lord of the Rings would have been like if Tolkien decided to have Eowyn remain with Aragorn? (Maybe Eowyn would defend a non-mortally wounded Aragorn instead of a mortally wounded Theoden at the Battle of Pelennor Fields?)

@timber72

6 ай бұрын

Jackson made the decision to fundamentally alter Tolkien's work, because he's an arrogant prick who thought he was a better writer than Tolkien.

In the Director's Cut of The Fellowship of the Ring, Haldir had more scenes, so having him in the second movie and dying actually meant a lot. In the Director's Cut of the first movie, Haldir at first didn't want to let the Fellowship into Galadriel's forest. He had real character growth throughout his arc, to the point where he died fighting next to humans to protect the realm from Sauron.

@theashenverdict1629

7 ай бұрын

I always thought that whenever Haldir died it brought more depth to the battle because a character we've previously seen is now lost to the horrors of war. Almost as if it was a turning point in the battle to where there was a chance that maybe they couldn't defend the keep long enough until Gandalf could arrive. I will always say that the people that are strictly for the books can stay with the books because the films we got was a beautiful gift and nobody can ever take it away.

@donny841

6 ай бұрын

Read the second book recently and haldir never turned up before helms deep... am I wrong here or is this added to the film for no reason?

@jerrywatchesmovies

6 ай бұрын

Yep. The film added Haldir to the second movie. He wasn't at Helm's Deep in the books@@donny841

@GeneralNaga67

6 ай бұрын

@@donny841did you watch the video you’re commenting on? It literally explains why the elves were added in the movie when they aren’t anywhere to be seen in the books.

@donny841

6 ай бұрын

@@GeneralNaga67 il watch again now I'm not sleep deprived lol

The fact that we still talk about this battle, after 20 years, speaks volumes. How many "superfans" will care about Rings of Prime in 10 years???

@jervistetchMadHater

7 ай бұрын

0

@Hyrulemaster21

7 ай бұрын

The Rings of "what"?! Never heard of it

@Luke_Go

7 ай бұрын

@@Hyrulemaster21 You're totally right: nobody cares about that anti-Tolkien show.

@michaelnurse9089

7 ай бұрын

How many care today?

@newwavepop

7 ай бұрын

does it even have superfans, or even just fans?

"He's telling a story about friendship, brotherhood, and how even the smallest person can make a difference... if there's good in their heart". Man, that actually made me tear up. You're a great narrator, keep up the great work.

@samirSch

2 ай бұрын

@@erdelegy He'd be just a grumpy old man complaining in vain then. Although the movies aren't as deep as the books, they don't fail in passing all its important messages. Plus the biggest/deepest quotes from the books are always there, at least in the extended version.

Yeah, it would've felt as forced as the idea was, for sure. I personally feel like they gave her a respectable amount of agency and switching her out with glorfindel never bothered me at all. Would've been nice to have him too but he also might've felt kind of shoe-horned in.

@mitchellmcbeain7882

7 ай бұрын

Currently reading the books, almost to the end of two towers. Glorfindel was so minor, it’s a good thing they kept him out. It was honestly so many pages and stories ago. I can’t really remember his involvement. It’s good that his actions, of escorting the hobbits and Aragorn to Rivendell is replaced by a character who has more of a significant presence for the rest of the trilogy.

@Swiftbow

7 ай бұрын

Glorfindel was kind of a cameo from the Silmarillion. (Which most movie goers wouldn't understand at all. Even most book readers wouldn't.) It made a lot of sense to cut him out.

@Wmuthoni

7 ай бұрын

I concur the Final Cut of the trilogy was perfect the way it was done and couldn’t have asked for a better Arwen storyline.

@Swiftbow

7 ай бұрын

@@Wmuthoni I wouldn't mind a COUPLE changes to Return of the King... one line, maybe, indicating that the Army of the Dead might have switched allegiance if the Witch King was still alive when they got there. And also the Scouring of the Shire.

@Hellomynameis93

7 ай бұрын

​@@Swiftbowthe shire is the biggest one.

"you dont have to put a sword in her hand to make her strong" wise words

@Likexner

7 ай бұрын

But why does she have to be strong in the first place? Why does every story have to include "strong women"? Whats so wrong with a story where women just arent that important?

@minim3494

7 ай бұрын

Why would it annoy anyone to include women though? I hate the whole sword fighting 'strong woman' troupe for the most part but imo the women in lord of the rings all definately add value to it and make it a better movie. It doesn't feel like the added women just for the sake of it. Not like these days where every film has to include someone of every gender and ethnicity just for the sake of it. If thr characters have purpose and make it better then great. Otherwise, nope. Imo lotr is better for its female cast. Especially considering it is largely a film about the evils of war. And both men and women suffer as a result of war.

@huskidawgs

7 ай бұрын

Generallyl I agree with you that not every story should require a strong woman. But in this case, Arwen IS a strong woman and should be shown as such.@@Likexner

@HarrDarr

6 ай бұрын

@@Likexner because she is the betrothed to Aragorn and is future queen of the Reunited Kingdom. She is strong in the books, she is strong in the movies.

I think their handling of Arwen is just perfect. She deserves agency within the story and she got that, but I think her relationship with Aragorn works best as lovers separated by duty, war and family, but still staying true and devout to one another

@damac5136

6 ай бұрын

Well put!

Back when this was all new and hotly debated, I remember a few of us in the camp that absolutely approved of the change to Arwen. Sure, I love the books, but movies are a different beast. In books you can spend pages upon pages fleshing out a character like Glorfindel (or Tom Bombadil and Goldberry) who only appears meaningfully in one significant scene and then never heard from again, whose impact upon the protagonists is meaningful and memorable because of all the time and detail you spend reading those passages. In a movie, you have this random guy appear from nowhere, out of context, who carries Frodo to safety for a few intense minutes, never to be seen again (except a brief appearance in the Council of Elrond), with no real time to give him his due...or you can use a character that we will absolutely see again and use that change to give her more character and depth so that the audience can begin forming an attachment to her given her pivotal role to Aragorn. These are the hard choices one must make when adapting novels into films so that you don't end up with a mess that general audiences will hate.

@Swiftbow

7 ай бұрын

There was concern about how much they'd changed her role. Sticking her in Helm's Deep WOULD have been too much. But yeah, as far as Fellowship went, it was perfectly fine, and (I thought) an improvement over Glorfindel, who appeared briefly in the book as this mega-powerful Elf lord, and then vanished entirely from the story after the ford.

@FrenchCelt

7 ай бұрын

@@Swiftbow Glorfindel was at the Council of Elrond and sat with Elrond and Gandalf. He suggested the Ring be given to Tom Bombadil when they were trying to figure out what to do with it. That was the last we saw of him in LOTR. The problem with a character like Glorfindel is that Tolkien had already established him as a mighty Elf in the First Age in his earlier writings that preceded The Hobbit and LOTR, which was published posthumously as The Silmarillion, and Tolkien didn’t really think about how odd it would be to include a character that he loved and knew well from all the backstory he had written since WWI, but from the reader’s perspective was just this OP Elf lord that conveniently showed up to save Frodo, had some thoughts about what to do with the Ring, and was never seen nor heard from again.

@Swiftbow

7 ай бұрын

@@FrenchCelt Oh yeah, I forgot Glorfindel was the one to suggest Bombadil. Kind of hilarious that the second extraneous character was the one who wanted the first extraneous character to come back. I read LotR at about... 8 or 9, I think? And I kept imagining Frodo and Sam running from Sauron in Barad Dur, being cornered, and then singing for Tom Bombadil. And then Bombadil vs. Sauron would be the climax. I can't remember if I actually thought that would happen or if it was more just an idle daydream. But the mental image of that epic encounter still amuses me.

@firelock9080

6 ай бұрын

Turns out that's precisely how they treated Haldir, who survives the trilogy in the books.

I absolutely love how they extended Arwen's charachter beyond the books and I also love that they decided to cut her out of Helm's Deep. These two things combined made her an excellent female charachter in the movies. While we shown how badass she can be if need, we don't see her in actuall physical battle, that's Eowyn's role in the story. Arwen went through her own battles and helped the cause. Not every woman (and any other person) has to fight in battle to be valid, strong and important. PJ's trilogy is a wonderful example how to make diverse female charachters. Plus Haldir's arrival at Helm's Deep is one of my favorite scenes in the whole trilogy. It is about the alliance of divided races and hope to be found in friendship. "We are proud to fight alongside men once more" brings tears to my eyes every time. Making it about romantic love would've downplayed the significance of this moment.

"You don't have to put a sword in her hand to make her strong." The Rings of Power screenwriters should take note.

@CaptainFSU

7 ай бұрын

Especially since Galadriel is more a wizard then a warrior, she's literally called an Elf-witch.

@ninjadudeofficial

7 ай бұрын

While I don't hate that show and somewhat understand the reasons they made the changes they did to her character (even if I don't agree with the decision), I do think it may have been better (and sure more faithful but the material is pretty lacking for the second age esp her involvement) to have her be more as a leader as she should've been. If you want to show her fighting, ask the estate to have a flashwack to the war of wrath or something. Or maybe have a moment that you build up to over the first 2 or 3 seasons seeing as the show is gonna be so long. Idk, given the length I'm just gonna keep watching somewhat ildly to see if they learn a few lessons and have plans drawn out far enough ahead as they damn well should. Still time for her to become the powerful ruler we know

@mechadoggy

7 ай бұрын

@@CaptainFSUIndeed, if I remember correctly, Tolkien says that Galadriel herself was the one who threw down the gates/foundations of Dol Guldur, implykng that she has some magical power of her own due to Nenya, her ring of power

I disagree with the characterisation of Haldir's death as "useless". To me, his death was incredibly powerful and a stand-out moment in the film. Why? Because, to me, it showed the power of the commitment of the Elves to the alliance. As Haldir falls, I can see the realisation that he is dying written large across his face. We also get to see him looking around and seeing other Elves falling. Haldir identifies with their deaths, knowing the cost of each and every one. Both of these elements are incredibly powerful, in my opinion. These essentially immortal beings committed to a battle, to providing help and support, despite the fact that the cost to them would be incredibly high. They gave up their immortality for the alliance and the cause. The way that Haldir's death is portrayed shows us exactly that.

@andrebrynkus2055

7 ай бұрын

The elves up to that point barely showed any commitment or loyalty to Middle Earth. They seemed content to let things happen as long as they could escape the realm and live forever. That one guy fighting and ultimately giving his life showed that maybe the elves did value the lives of others equally.

@ruan13o

7 ай бұрын

I agree with you as a fan of the film and books. BUT I would say that is people like us reading a lot into what was strictly speaking very little. For a casual viewer of the film it was a random elf turning up and the same random elf dying a bit later. By the end of the third film they would have long forgotten Haldir. I agree the intent was good, I also think the acting was very good but ultimately he could have not been in the whole Helms Deep sequence and nothing material would be different. It really only makes sense why we know that it was a last minute swap out for Arwen. I'm convinced if they hadn't originally had Arwen in this sequence then Haldir either would have been in the film at all or he would have had a much fuller introduction and build of the character before his death.

@Enjay001

7 ай бұрын

@@ruan13o Yep, I can't really disagree with anything you said. Personally though, I remember watching The Two Towers in the cinema for the first time and when Haldir turned up, I immediately recognised him (i.e. the actor, so I knew that it wasn't just some random Elf, it was Haldir as seen in the previous movie) and thought it was a really good call back to The Fellowship where we saw Haldir as an important guard of Lothlórien who initially captured the Fellowhip and was there at most of the important moments in Lothlórien that were shown to us. As such, it made sense for him to be one of the ones who turn up and assist at the Battle of the Hornburg and it helped the tie the two films together. The Elves of Lothlórien had committed to the alliance. And, possibly because of the above, I was hugely struck by his death and it remains, to me, one of the most powerful moments in the battle. But, yes, I guess for a lot of people it could just as easily have been "who's this random guy who has just turned up and died". Some more building of who he was within The Two Towers, and perhaps some mention of the Elves not providing support, only to turn up later, or something, could have made the importance of Haldir and the Elves more explicit and meaningful, especially for the more casual viewer. i.e. something that underlined and explained why this was a commitment and a big deal. Of course, there would be a danger of being too explicit/ audience hand-holding if handled incorrectly.

@waynepurcell6058

7 ай бұрын

It's often hard for those of us that have read the books and other lore 1000 times to get emotionally invested in it. Haldir dies. So what? We know his undying fea (soul) goes directly to the Halls of Mandos in Valinor to eventually be reembodied. What difference does dying make when you don't really die? Kind of like calling Superman a superhero. It's an easy walk in the park to take on extreme dangers when you're invulnerable to 99.9% of shit. That's not heroic. A hero is someone that does something when they have everything to lose, like a man charging a machine gun bunker full well knowing that he may not ever draw another breath in 0.2 seconds.

@BluffyMoo

7 ай бұрын

​@@Enjay001Agree. A few scenes like with Galadriel instructing Haldir in Lothlorien to take a few company of Elves to go help in the defense of the Battle of the Hornburg, honoring the last alliance would work.

It's interesting how people have such different perspectives on Haldir. He's one of my favorite side characters in the trilogy, the first time i watched the movies i felt SO sad when he died. We see all of these immortal elves who probably saw amazing things and lived so many experiences during hundreds or thousands of years... dying like dogs in the dirt. The way Haldir looked so confused about what was happening and wasn't able to process it before getting killed really left an impact on me.

As someone who hasn’t read the books I think this was a very wise choice. I really appreciate the time they gave the character on screen in the first film to establish her as more than just Aragorn’s love interest; more than it sounds like the books did. But keeping them separated till the end of Return of the King with some mythical forms of communication in between makes that reunion very emotional and satisfying. I think they found a great middle ground here for Arwen of more time in the story without overdoing it, thus giving us a great female character that isn’t a stupid damsel in distress or a shoe horned in warrior princess.

@Swiftbow

7 ай бұрын

There's additional Aragorn and Arwen content (quite a lot, actually) in the appendix of Return of the King. They used a lot of that for the movies. But it's not in the narrative proper, so a lot of people skip it. The reason it's in the appendix is because it wouldn't have fit very well in the main storyline, because most of their best scenes take place in Aragorn's childhood, as a teen, a young adult, and then after he becomes king. All time periods that are well outside LotR's narrative scope. (Tolkien did not do flashbacks.)

@thevikingbear2343

7 ай бұрын

Also keeping Arwen far from Aragorn in movie 2 gives much more meaning to the necklace. The necklace means nothing if Arwen is there with him, just magical jewelry, but with her far away separated by a huge battle the necklace becomes Aragorn's goal He has to return the necklace to Arwen. It is through the importance of the nareative importance of the necklace necklace that the dream vision that saves him from the river is made logical for the viewer and not just plot convenience vision. Did the necklace do it? Did she do it? Or was aragorn just delirious? We will never know but it makes sense anyway..

@BigAl53750

7 ай бұрын

Anyone who has seen the movies but not read the books doesn’t really know the LOTR story. It’s a bit like someone who has smelled a freshly baked cake, claiming that he knows what it tastes like. Whilst he may have a good idea of what the cake MIGHT taste like, he really has no idea what it DOES taste like.

@andrew4233th

7 ай бұрын

@@BigAl53750 I wasn’t claiming to know the books or what the ‘cake tastes like.’ I never said I was an expert or that I knew better than the books. All I was saying is I felt they did a good job with Arwen in the movies and her relationship with Aragorn based on what the video says about her portrayal in the books. Maybe it’s better in the books than they give it credit for. I don’t know. All I know is that I feel they did a good job in the movies. I don’t understand why you feel the need to gatekeep or be condescending especially when all I was saying is that I enjoyed the character in the movies. Forgive me for not being as pure a fan as you. Heaven forbid I enjoy something that doesn’t effect your life in anyway.

@MarianPowell

7 ай бұрын

I disagree with you saying you have to have read the books to really know the LOTR story. A movie is different from a book. What matters is the story the movie shows us watching the movie just as the story in the books is all that matters when reading it. Of course they will be different experiences. @@BigAl53750

"You don't have to put a sword in her hand to make her strong." This idea must have been lost in time.

@michaelnurse9089

7 ай бұрын

Yip. Disney should put that on a banner over the entrance to their c-suite.

No for three reasons - 1 - that would have destroyed the story line of Eowyn liking Aragorn, but him unable to reciprocate because of Arwen. It was a very important part that showed just how deeply he loved her. 2 - Haldir - his death did have impact and that is because of the actors themselves who played Haldir and Aragorn. Haldir's - "We have come to honor that allegiance." - the way it was said, was just perfect. And Aragorn's overwhelming joy and relief resulting in a hug - well the entire scene between them deserved a chef's kiss. At Haldir's death - I cried "NOOOO". The point is that they did a fantastic job with it. (Not fan girling at all folks )😄 And 3 - I agree, to have had her there would have diminished Eowyn's character. Having two fighting women would have ruined both their stories.

Surprised you didn't mention how there are two of "Legolas" in the cavalry charge out of Helm's Deep just before Gandalf and Eomer arrive. That was the first evidence I ever saw for the change. Good summary overall. :)

What Liv says, “You don’t have to put a sword in Arwen’s hand to show her strength “. Absolutely. She got the character.

I also agree it would undermine Eowyn's character and the theme of the books. Eowyn went to war because she was hopeless and certain they all would die in the end and is Faramir the one who changes her mind. "I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend".

I don’t consider Haldir’s death useless. I consider it very important as a depiction of a character that is willing to give up their life when they are meant to live forever. He represents the battles we don’t see between Sauron’s forces and the elves of Mirkwood and Lorien which happened during that time.

I would love to see the deleted scenes, edited, but I think that the strongest Point against Arwen being at Helm's Deep is the negative effect it would have on Eowyns story. For that reason, I'm glad they left it out, even though I think the scenes would be awesome

@lioness.moon.goddesss2402

7 ай бұрын

I agree. I think it was a good decision to leave her out, but the scenes would have been just super cool.

We shall never forget the legendary battle of Home's Depot.

@michaelnurse9089

7 ай бұрын

Black Friday door opening could be used for footage.

@ruan13o

7 ай бұрын

@@michaelnurse9089 it was considered but then judged to be too violent to be shown on screen.

@WigganNuG

7 ай бұрын

@@ruan13o underrated comment. LMAO!!!

@TomTom-bh2wf

6 ай бұрын

I will always remember. And Pepperidge Farm rememebers.

Putting Arwen into helms deep re-writes Arwen. They made the right call. Arwens faith in the good of the world - in the face of fear and her father's defeatism - is a powerful message. And her support of Aragon is beautiful, in part because she defies and challenges her father. I felt her use as a replacement for Glorfindel was smart, and closed a plot contrivance in the original work (Glorfindel not being in the fellowship) and showed she was capable without completely rewriting the character. Arwen is strong, and Liv Tyler communicated that well in her performance.

“You don’t have to put a sword in her hand to make her strong” Take notes 2023 Hollywood!

There was also a lot of gore edited out of both Two Towers and ROTK. In Helm's Deep specifically there was a scene of the Uruk-Hai desecrating the corpses of the fallen defenders on the wall. It was filmed to keep in line with the tone of the books but removed in order to have a PG-13 release. I'm not a fan of gore normally but it would be something else to have it added back into the film series we know and love. Orcs and Uruk-Hai chopping up people would make them that much more terrifying and brutality and give us a glimpse of the terror and darkness that the people of Middle Earth had to deal with. The "Meat's back on the menu, boys!" scene is now almost treated as comical by the fans. Jackson has teased at yet another special edition to be released a couple decades after the extended edition that will have this and up to 30 minutes more footage (per movie?) if I recall correctly. It would be great if he did. A final edition of LOTR would be a swansong to a cinematic franchise that was ruined by both an unnecessary trilogy and a farcically bad TV show.

I was horrified when I saw the elves marching into helm's deep. I actually gasped with disgust in the theater when it happened. If Arwen would have been there, that would have been 10 times worse. I already thought they contrived her role far too much, but wasn't as unhappy about it as some of the true believers I knew were. But, it wasn't the most egregious lore mistake in the films, and I was able to overlook it after a while. As for Haldir, though I was still pretty disgusted with the whole idea of elves at helms deep, I did appreciate his part. Watching an elf die, and that elf watching his kinsmen dying around him, was so sad. Nothing sadder than a dead elf :)

@KingKong11730

5 ай бұрын

I can see why people really don't like the elves at helms deep, but I think it's a pretty important inclusion in the films for people who didn't read the books. Without that addition, it would feel as if the war of the ring was really just a quarrel between the men of the west and the orcs/uruks of mordor/isengard respectively. In the books you know that Sauron actually attacked the Elven kingdoms and even the Dwarf kingdoms as well - which is why the kingdoms of men were largely left to their own devices for some of the major fights including helms deep and to a degree at pelinoor fields + the black gate. Including the elves at helms deep shows that there was indeed an alliance and other races of Middle Earth were involved during the war of the ring. In an ideal world you could tell the stories of the elves separately (including what Glorfindel was up to) but the movies are each almost 4 hours long, so there had to be certain compromises.

"you don't have to put a sword in her hand to make her strong". Oh how many studios need to hear this.

Wow I never knew! Cool informative vid. Replacing Glorfindel with Arwen at the ford scene - it’s crazy to hear Liv Tyler explaining how much flak they got for that decision! The scene gave Arwen’s character agency and bearing on the plot, as well as a moment in the spotlight so desperately needed (otherwise the dream sequences would’ve been disproportionate). Yes, sad to sacrifice a minor character, but the payoff was incredible. To this day that scene sends shivers down my spine. Watching these films for the first time as a teenager (and as a girl), I really valued seeing female characters get in on the action & facing difficult/courageous choices of their own (independent of a romance). While I dislike the modern trend of every female character having to be a kick-ass, it’s always beneficial from a storytelling perspective to portray women impacting the plot & other main characters (in multi-faceted ways), because men & women have different strengths & weaknesses which complement each other; it’s how we’re designed. can anything great be done without a team effort? I totally agree with the comment pointing out that it would’ve deflated the tension irreparably if she’d been at Helm’s Deep. (Also, can I point out that it’s okay to admire an author while not thinking everything they did is untouchable? Who knows, Tolkien may have liked the idea of Arwen at the ford instead of Glorfindel if he’d come up with it himself - as someone pointed out, he apparently tried to find ways of giving her more agency but struggled).

@Likexner

7 ай бұрын

The only strength that women have that men dont have is the ability to bear children. There is nothing women can do in war that men cant.

@RQuinton79

7 ай бұрын

Outside of the ability to reproduce, as you point out, men and women have identical physical functions. To dismiss women as just child bearers to produce male warriors is incredibly narrow-minded in both life and war. War is not just physical but physical, mental, and emotional. Throughout real history women have led nations and armies to victory, almost exclusively against male opponents. And let's not forget, it was Eowen that killed the Witch King in the middle of battle. Referring to the original post, she said nothing about women being better or worse at fighting, but that our strengths are complimentary and enhance each other. After 20 years of marriage, she speaks facts.

I grew up reading Tolkien's books back in the 70s and day-dreaming of being at Helm's Deep and fighting the orcs at Aragorn's side. Jackson's film adaptation of LOTR was amazing, jaw-dropping, and became my new visualization for how Middle Earth and the characters looked and acted. I loved how they portrayed Arwen and loved Liv Tyler's portrayal of the character. She is Arwen. 🥰

Poor Aragorn... he went from being revived by a kiss from Arwen to being revived by a kiss from Brego.

@bill-nolastnamesupplied-958

4 ай бұрын

"Honey, why the long face?"

I think it's good that they took Arwen out of the fight--for the reasons you cite, but also because the movie reflects the ethos of a time when people did wait for things, including love. When a war or exploration took men away from home, they and their wives often had to wait years to be reunited. So the argument that Arwen and Aragorn had to see more of each other to stay in love just doesn't hold up in this very chivalric setting.

What hated most was how diminished Gimli's role was. In the books his defense of the caves was critical to victory. Would much rather have had that then unnecessary elves or Arwen

@modgal

7 ай бұрын

Yes, it was unfortunate that the character became comic relief

@SLow-fb3qm

7 ай бұрын

Nonsense. He’s critical to all battles. He’s even thrown.

@retriever19golden55

7 ай бұрын

I'm fine with elves and Arwen, but I didn't appreciate Gimli being the comic relief, especially the dwarf-throwing. Gimli was a hero.

@agin1519

6 ай бұрын

@@retriever19golden55The irony is the portrayal of the dwarves is best in two things- Gandalf’s reading of the chronicles of the doomed and in, however hated it is, Rings of Power. It’s hard to get the feeling in LOTR why you’d want an army of these guys turning up. I ‘ve also seen the actor who played Haldir play so many other things, including an incredibly sweet Mole in the Wind in the Willows, so it felt a bit like they killed Moley!

@deannakay6607

6 ай бұрын

Another aspect of Gimli the movie messed up was his love for the hobbits. For instance, when Frodo turned out to be alive after getting stabbed by the cave troll, and the mithril shirt having saved him, Gimli (in the book) practically wanted to hug and kiss Bilbo for having given this to Frodo!

TRIVIA: Speaking of deleted segments, many people don't know that they filmed a long "Second Council of Elrond" that in the movies would've take place in Lothlorien and the result of it would've been sending an army to help Rohan, and THIS would've been the reason of why we see a company of elves arriving in Helm;s Deep in the Two Towers out of "nowhere" there. If you watch those compilations of "deleted scenes" or even promotional pictures with Arwen and Galadriel or Galadriel and Elrond TOGETHER, these are reminiscents of this "Second Council" that was filmed.

For me one of the changes that I didn't like was the way Hamas death was handled. Hama in the books died defending the gate of Helms Deep and in the movies he was just mauled and killed off by some random Warg. "Two mounds were made, one for the orcs the other for the men. A smaller mound was made for Hama, Captain of the Guard. He fell before the gate". Not a 100% exact quote but Hama was honored so much that he was given his own burial mount separate from the mass grave for all the other men of Rohan. Hama deserved better on film.

A good change, like removing Sauron from the final battle at the Black Gates. Especially as some of the changes they DID make went against the books for no particular reason IMO

@Kjf365

7 ай бұрын

Ngl, would have been cool to see that giant armored monster of a villain tear through the battlefield one last time though.

@jaimy_games

7 ай бұрын

Yeah that deleted scene of Aragorn vs Sauron would have totally broken the movies. It is chilling how close they were in screwing up the movies. At least we got the see Peter Jackson's lore destruction in the Hobbit.

i finally understand why they put elves at helms deep in the films, when there are none in the books. it was because they were coming with Arwen. I was always confused by that. The elves at helms deep and the ghosts at Pelennor fields were two changes from the books that never sat right with me. One of the main themes in the books is that no-one is coming to magically save us from our problems - people (Men) have to confront them ourselves.

@michaelnurse9089

7 ай бұрын

A good observation about men solving their own problems. That said, the company of Elves did not save them at Helm's Deep. Gandalf, Merry and Pippin saved them at Helm's Deep, as well as the resilience of Aragorn in face of despair.

@ruan13o

7 ай бұрын

I'd say the elves at Helms Deep is an ok decision that isn't too odd (especially if you ignore the book and only focus on the film). The ghosts at Pelennor Fields I hated because first of all, I think they could have resolved the battle without them. Second the ghosts didn't add any more interest, they just wash over the enemy because they are unkillable and unstoppable. Third, it made no sense why Aragon didn't then continue to take the ghosts to Mordor and wipe out all of Sauron's army. The ghost king says Aragon needs to honour his promise but in the tomb scene Aragon didn't say, 'you need to fight just one battle for me', he just asked them to fight for him so it's not unreasonable for him to take them to Mordor and then release them.

@bruttus11

7 ай бұрын

The elves arrive at helms deep in the films because they cut out the assistance of the elves to Aragorn’s coming to the White City. Instead, the focus is on the Dead helping Aragorn, which is in the books. Without adding the elves at helms deep, the elves would basically do nothing in the films after the fellowship leave Galadriel, which wouldn’t have properly reflected their role in the books.

The Trilogy was mandatory reading inn my english class 50 years ago. There is always a departure from what was written when doing movies. This was done with excellence in mind. Bravo!

Having read LotR in its entirety in my youth, I was pleased to finally see an excellent cinematic adaptation. I'm glad that Arwen was downplayed or just made absent in some of these crucial scenes. The genius was in realizing that having her everywhere would minimize the impact of other characters. Having her in touching, special scenes made them far more meaningful, such as when Aragorn went over the cliff. He was ready to give up, but thoughts of her (whether she was actually there or just in Aragorn's mind) gave him the strength to get up. Imagine how diminished such a scene would be if she'd had more screen time. Like I said, genius editing. That said, what do the purists have to say about Amazon's "Rings of Power"? Such rubbish deserves derision.

I prefer the one they ended up having in the film. I just don't see Elrond letting Arwen go to battle and to be there for Aragorn. He is not supportive of the relationship. I think the distance really makes the end of Return of the King more potent.

I too thought Haldir's arrival was the best of the made-up scenes, introducing resonances from the ancient background. His death cleverly portrayed the elves' "fighting the long defeat", but his arrival was the touch of genius - the more so because it was unexpected in the three dimensional world as well as the mythic one.

4:30 This just absolutely blew my mind. I knew Arwen was supposed to be in Helm's Deep in the original script and I knew this was scrapped. 21 years and countless viewings later this is the first time I actually saw her there on film. Wow.

Having Arwen at Helm's Deep would have been too much. Incorporating the story of Arwen and Aragorn from the appendices worked well. While Haldir was a clever bit of creative licence, I would have preferred to have Ellodan and Elrohir make some sort of cameo to add better continuity with the principal texts. Not disappointed in Peter Jackson's tribute but like some of us who read the novels, there are some minor details that could have been incorporated better.

So many Directors and Producers who want to portray strong women by giving them a sword and that’s a trap in so many cases. Eowyn’s longing for glory by death in battle is part cultural but also due to depression and despair. In the end she finds her strength in hope through Faramir’s kindness and gentleness - which is so different than the warriors she was raised by. It really is such a lovely story that I’m sad they cut so much of that out of Return of the King.

In the book the last alliance of men and elves was thousands of years gone. There was no alliance (indeed the last alliance had been…the *last* alliance. ). Elves had become aware of the damage they had caused in the past and were withdrawing from middle earth which was not their realm. They consciously chose not to interfere. Elrond’s family is different because they are part human and can choose to live as human or elf. Tolkien himself tried to put more Arwen in the books but couldn’t make it work. It was not an easy task. I agree with Liv that there are other ways to show a strong woman without giving her a sword. If they’d gone with that idea from the start (perhaps drawing more from the photo-Arwen, Luthien who defeated Sauron himself without a sword) they could have made it work.

"Jackson was deeply concerned with paying homage to Tolkien's work and universe" Hobbit Trilogy just left the chat....

@michaelnurse9089

7 ай бұрын

Jackson was not to blame. del Toro must take most of the blame, as well as studio execs who probably forced his hand.

I had no problem with Arwen replacing one-off Glorfindel and getting a heroic introduction in the FotR, but I agree that a more martial Arwen would have stepped on Eowyn’s storyline. I also like that the distance between her and Aragorn parallels that between Frodo and Gandalf, whom Frodo thinks is dead for the entire second and third films. It ups the poignancy and the heroism of Frodo significantly that he perseveres, believing his mentor to be gone. In the same way, Aragorn and Arwen part on difficult terms, and he spends the second and third films assuming she has left for the Grey Havens. It makes their reunion so much sweeter at the end, knowing that he was taking the crown thinking he would be without a consort. If Arwen had been palling around with him and the boys at Helm’s Deep, their final reunion (not to speak of Aragorn’s genuine connection with Eowyn, uneven though it was) would have been much less resonant.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat! No way after all this time and the knowledge of the movies and making of of it , i learned new crucial infos man it is really de greatest movie of all time, now they hrealizerealise a 10-hour cut of the movie with Arwen in it.

Liv Tyler: We came to realise that we don't need to put a sword in her hands to make her strong. Hear that, RoP? Take notes!!!

As a women who was a little girl when these films came out, I was lucky enough to see them in the cinema for my birthday 3 years running. I adored Arwen. I wanted to be just like her. She wasnt my absolute favourite but I identified with her much more than Eowyn and Galadriel (who are both badassses of a different kind). Brave Arwen was strong enough to weild a sword if absolutely necessary, but I wanted to wear fancy dresses and be listened to when i spoke and stay at home. I didn't want to fight in dirty battles. Arwen represents a different kind of strength - the strength to wait at home with little news, and not give up hope. To not betray the man you love while he has gone to war. To stand up to your parents about what you want in life. Liv was right. Arwen doesnt need a sword to be a mighty woman. I love her, and I love every moment of the extended Trilogy. (I wanted to be like Arwen but my favourite character is actually Pippin. He's just doing his best and tries so hard to be brave and messes up endlessly, il I adore him 😂, and I had a massive crush on Legolas. Archery is my favourite type of fighting/weaponry and I thought he was the absolute bees knees. 20 years later and I still watch the films every year. Best trilogy ever made.)

Not having her there was still a good choice. Though the one the decision that I still don't care for and I think was a failure on Jackson's part was how he handled Saruman and the Scouring of the Shire.

@drewidlifestyle7883

7 ай бұрын

I feel like it would’ve been great for an extended cut. It’s tough because Sauron is the big bad so making Saruman the final boss so to speak throws that off a bit especially in a movie that needs to appeal to both book and movie fans.

@Swiftbow

7 ай бұрын

I'd love to hear that they actually filmed the Scouring of the Shire and we would get THAT on a new extended release.

NLC, PJ, and their entire teams did a fantastic job at capturing the spirit of the trilogy. There's absolutely *no* possible way every character, interaction, battle, and plot point could have been present. Otherwise, it'd be more like twelve films. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨

holly crap, "we don't need to put a sword in her hand to make her strong" -Liv Tyler, absolutely based. too bad Amazon didn't understand that.

@dw1419

7 ай бұрын

Sad how a statement like that, which was completely unremarkable and common sense 20 years ago, is now based and takes a lot of courage to say.

I am rereading the books right now (probably for the 6th time), I am at the end where the ring has just been destroyed and through out it all it made me realize how excellent of a job they did bringing this to the big screen.

Arwen's role in the movie was just fine and believable. The compromises from the book to movie was well done. I enjoyed and still enjoyed every moments of it.

If she had been at the battle, as said, Eowyn's story would've been blunted. I'm glad they worked her in in other ways. Otherwise, the last bit where they get married would've been like, "Oh, yeah. Liv Tyler."

While I don't think that I would have disliked her at Helm's Deep, I think they made the right call. Regardless of gender, there are so many side characters that just didn't do enough in the books to warrant a spot as characters. Wrapping Glorfindel into Arwyn made sense because he doesn't do anything else in the trilogy, despite his importance in the background lore. I like Haldir at Helms Deep because it gives him a little more to do so he's not just a blink and you'll miss it cameo in Fellowship. Having him die at Helm's Deep reminds us of the sacrifice of the Elves Immortal lives to protect Middle Earth when they could just sail across the ocean and live forever instead.

Haldir's death was super emotional and was the turning point where you began to believe they might not make it, it gave a perfect opportunity to capture the fear the defenders would have felt as they were surrounded by death. I'm so happy that Arwen didn't show up at helms deep, it would have strayed too far from the original work, aside from that, it made sense in the movie that she would have had a hand in sending the elven contingent that fought alongside them. also Eowyn already had a badass shield maiden moment in the story, and people would have compared her to Arwen at helms deep and be like "he should be with Eowyn she's way more badass! I mean he had to save Arwen and Eowyn saved the day!" and all that noise. I feel the way it was done had to be that way to remain somewhat faithful to tolkiens work, and straying that far would have tarnished the character. her rescuing Frodo and finding Aragorn wasn't in the book, but it at least made sense... her coming to war with Aragorn would have been such a huge dispatch from the character, and to imagine that Aragorn would ever want his love in combat with him is entirely ridiculous... the lore is based on ancient Saxon tradition ffs. next thing you know Galadriel would be ridding in with a bunch of rangers from the north to fight in Mordor!! (oh wait Hollywood did decide that happened 😅) As a huge lotr fan I'm infatuated with the movies we got, and I love them to this day. Props on the editors for keeping the Hollywood out of this beloved story (at least in this iteration)

@bill-nolastnamesupplied-958

4 ай бұрын

I agree; had Arwen been placed at Helm's Deep then Aragorn riding with King Theoden doesn't show the clear, "We are out of options, all we have is hope that Gandolf comes with help otherwise this will be our last ride. We can't stay here, we must distract the orcs so the women and children have time to escape through the caves, even if it will cost our lives to do so." Having Arwen there would distract Aragorn and the audience: is Aragorn doing this final ride out to save the Rohirrim or really to try to save the elf Arwen and allow her to escape. Aragorn needs to show that he is almost ready to be king of Gondor, but is firstly a man willing to fight to the death for Rohan and its king to honour allegiances.

P. Jackson understood how to transfer the books into movies keeping all that matters intact and making only changes to where the books would be very difficult to translate into a 3 hour movie. He also left aside any politics that nowadays take place which is also important to have the books translated as accurately as possible

@ryancruz1876

6 ай бұрын

Uh, that’s a bald faced lie. 🤣

It's interesting to note the changes to how a lot of people perceive the additions to these female characters over time. In 2001, it was seen as a thematic choice to greatly expand Arwen's love story with Aragorn in order for it to make sense and be satisfying. The intent was not generally viewed as an external political desire to "have more women" in LOTR, and clearly it wasn't due to the small number of women in the films. But if LOTR had been made in 2023, it probably would have been a political decision, based on the desire for more women.

@newwavepop

7 ай бұрын

if it were made today she would probably lead the fellowship, and Aragorn would be back in Rivendell doing petty tasks for Elrond to try to earn her hand in marriage. which she actually would not want and these two patriarchs are trying to force her into.

@mechadoggy

7 ай бұрын

@@newwavepopNah, if it were made in 2023, they would make Aragorn gay for a blackified Boromir and then after Boromir gets lynched by Saruman’s homophobic racist orcs for being gay and black, Aragorn reluctantly agrees to marry Arwen only to be overjoyed when he realizes that Arwen is secretly a transwoman and thus has a penis even bigger than his own

@ddespair

6 ай бұрын

And if it had been made with the decision to include more women that would have been fine. Because that’s what the medium needs. Also, we had a strong woman character in Eowyn. If LOTR was released today, a bunch of incels would be complaining about her killing the witch king.

@mechadoggy

6 ай бұрын

@@ddespair “a bunch of incels would be complaining about her killing the witch king” What do you mean? Eowyn literally did kill the witch-king in canon, so why would anyone be upset by that? We’re talking about hypothetical deviations from canon. Eowyn’s epic victory over the witch-king is not a deviation from canon. If anything though, I would love to see more coverage of the War of the Ring in the Northern parts of Middle-Earth since we know that Sauron’s forces (not just orcs but Easterlings too) also clashed with Lothlorien, Thranduil’s realm, Erebor, Dale, Esgaroth I think, and maybe the Iron Hills as well. (Sauron did not only attack Gondor.) Therefore, there’s definitely much more narrative/creative freedom to come up with hypothetical female characters over there in the North. Like, as ardent of a purist I am about Tolkien’s work, I was perfectly fine with the addition of Tauriel in the Hobbit movies. (What was definitely not okay though was her completely nonsensical romance with Kili since elf-man marriages were already incredibly rare as is, only 3 in the whole history of Middle-Earth, such that an elf/dwarf romance would be much too improbably scandalous to exist. The only elf/man pairings were Beren/Luthien, Tuor/Idril, and obviously Aragorn/Arwen.) Even without creatively adding female characters to the northern front of the War of the Ring, Tolkien canon already has an epic girl-boss moment. According to the text, Galadriel has (another) really epic moment when fighting Sauron’s forces since it says that she herself was the one who “threw down” the gates/foundations of Dol Guldur, Sauron’s fortress in southern Mirkwood. (I imagine the siege would basically consist of the Lorien elves protecting Galadriel who has a very very long induction time for her to muster up enough magic and fully unleash it against Dol Guldur, presumably in an epic telekinetic way.) There you go, another really cool example of female representation that wouldn’t require any deviations from canon whatsoever. Even in the Hobbit movies, I think they showed Galadriel, not Elrond or Saruman or Gandalf, as getting credit for being the one to finally drive Sauron out of Dol Guldur successfully, back when he was merely a disembodied spirit. What I didn’t like though was how, instead of portraying Galadriel as this bright, shining, victorious conqueror (who is probably illuminated by the light of Elbereth, one of the Valar), they instead portrayed Galadriel to look like this horrific-looking water-drenched monster that you’d expect from the Ring movie.

@ddespair

6 ай бұрын

@@mechadoggy I’m not speaking in regards of the work, but the reception. You have a purist’s heart, which can rationalize well. What isn’t rational or logical is how incels are dumping on today’s media like Rings or The Marvels because they have minorities and women in the leads. What do these things have in common with the source material of LOTR? They are both adaptations, and adaptations of works of fiction. Adaptations of creatures and beings that never existed. In truth, there is no such thing as being truthful to the source material, but you know that and you gave good examples. The thing is, instead of saying something like “there’s no Tom Bombadil in the films” the criticism goes to “I hate the rings of power because it strays from the source material.” And no one gets mad when Erkenbrand is fulfilled by a completely different character, but now we’re mad because another character changed race or gender? Nobody complained when Robin Williams made hook and there were black and Filipino lost boys and new characters. But today, the right wing nuts have turned everything into a “I hate women and minorities in movies” thing. They wouldn’t like Arwen fighting at helms deep not because it isn’t canon but because they’d say it was “woke”. I’m merely asking why is ok to slam one thing and not the other? If LOTR was released today, the argument would be that they only made it to show scenes like Arwen riding against the nine or eowynn slaying the witch king. Regardless of faithfulness. Because showing women in that way just gets hate. The Marvels is a great example. Never have I seen a movie get so much hate for being bad yet no one has apparently seen it to know it was bad. If you think I’m wrong, I would challenge you to post what you just wrote about Tauriel under any KZread video about the original LOTR, and see how many people agree with you. I guarantee you’ll get swarmed by people who disagree. Everyone will claim it’s in line with purist intentions to the source material, but bring up Radagast or the Saruman (who were not in the hobbit) and see if that argument still works. There are many deviations from canon in the original LOTR. It’s just amusing how people treat the deviations they don’t like.

"you don't have to put a sword in her hand to make her strong." she gets it, many nowadays don't

Almost a quarter of a century later, people are still arguing about the "changes" Jackson made. The only way to remain upset about that is to have failed completely to read or understand all the writings of JRRT. Those that have are aware that Tolkien himself wrote most of his stories in many different ways. The details always changed, sometimes drastically, but the *story* was always the same. He was creating it as historical remnants, and all history exists in many versions. That was his intention. When a story has merit of its own, the details forming it become mere vehicles, not the vital thing itself. The use of Arwen's character in the films was really the best way of providing detail to the story in the books, where Aragorn and Arwen's relationship was vital but hardly mentioned. Making her film depiction match the book would have changed the story. Aragorn would not have been the person he was without that relationship, and it could not have been left out. Jackson didn't *change* the story, he *preserved* it, in a manner that JRRT would certainly have understood.

@7:28 "...you don't have to put a sword in her hands to make her strong". What a classy woman Liv Tyler is. Unlike those in Amazon's awful Rings of Power

There were more than three women with speaking roles. There were female hobbit neighbours and female Rohan mothers and I'm sure more I can't recall right now.

@michaelnurse9089

7 ай бұрын

Opening your mouth and saying a word or two does not make it a speaking role. There were three women of any consequence in the film.

If only Disney would understand this

Excellent analysis - didn't know she made it through in a few scenes! They cut Eowyn from Helms Deep as well. There are deleted scenes of her fighting orcs in the caves.

"You dont have to put a sword on her hand to make her strong". Well said, Liv. Well said.....

I love this trilogy.

Both LOTR film series are about the only movies not ruined by the addition of female heroines into the story. Arwen's chase with the wraths and her stance at the river facing them was one of the most epic scenes of the Trilogy. Although Eowyn taking down a mumakil with her toothpick slashes at its heels was unrealistic, the defeat of the Witch King by her hands was on par with Isildur's cutting the ring of Sauron. Its safe to say you need someone like Jackson who stays loyal to the intent of the Author to pull it off.

LOTR is a book written from the hobbits' perspective, Frodo in particular. It doesn't make sense for Arwen to be in the movie in any role apart from her relationship to a member of the fellowship. The books were not written as a romance. Bringing her in as a character substantively changes the overall flavor of the books as it shifts to a more omniscient, universal perspective rather than a distinctly Shire-based perspective. This is why it was wise to keep Arwen and Aragorn's relationship in the appendices and not to make their romance overt in the book. That said, given the nature of film, it's difficult to describe Aragorn's motivations without explicating some part of their romantic arc, so on the whole, I think Jackson did all right with bringing Arwen in. It was a great move to keep her out of Helm's Deep, though. That would have brought inappropriate focus to the role she was intended to play, both in the film and in the books.

One of the best comments ever and one that Amazon should have listened to before making Rings of Power - Liv Tyler on Arwen "you don't have to put a sword in her hand to make her strong".

@Sir_Gerald_Nosehairs.

7 ай бұрын

The Amazon disaster was one on so many levels. Take the works of an Anglophile, Marianist Catholic and remove religion, the respect for the holy feminine, and love of England and Englishness, and wonder why it doesn't have the same vibe.

Would've been nice to get the alternative version in the DVD's at least.

@ruan13o

7 ай бұрын

It never finished getting produced so it would have been a rubbish watch anyway.

I think they did a great job with Arwen, better than Tolkien himself. Where they fell short is with the characterization of Aragon as a man consumed by self-doubt and even willing to let Arwen go. That's so distant from the much better Aragorn of the book, man who has fully accepted his love for Arwen and the costs it entails because he's perfectly aware that Arwen is free to make her choices and they are both willing to pay the price of eternal separation. Film-Aragorn is a decent character but not really special, he has something so terribly cliche. Book-Aragorn, on the contrary, is quite deep and interesting the more you look into the character

Really cool for giving Jackson the credit as well

Elves don't die, their soul returns to the Halls of Mandos until they're reborn. Glorfindel was slain while killing a Balrog in Gondolin to be reborn hundreds of years later, that's why his disappearance from the movie is worse than you think, he's the strongest elven warrior on Middle Earth and the only capable of fighting against the 9 Nazgul, this is why he is chosen to carry Frodo to safety and this is why it makes no sense to give that role to Arwen.

I'm a huge LOTR fan in all mediums... not a fan of films that shoehorn more progressive or modern themes into stories... but they hit the perfect balance with Arwen in the films IMO. Other than Eowyn and Galadriel, the film needed more of a female presence and they gave her some agency without retconing her story beyond recognition.

The real reason was that Peter Jackson wanted to wrap the whole story around his favorite character, his alter ego, Aragorn. As the main character he had to had a romance and therefore the story had to be 'modified' in his favour. Aragorn is even named the leader of the Rohirrim by the movie-Eowyn which is ridiculous. He is the superstar, super-fighter, super-lover while all other Gondorians are demonized to let him shine alone. Great work, Jackson!

@BimpytheWimpyShrimpy

6 ай бұрын

Man, what an utterly petty and baseless interpretation

@varelion

6 ай бұрын

@@BimpytheWimpyShrimpy An answer of a lazy thinker and consumist. But if you analyze certain changes to the true story, you will see that instead of Frodo, Aragorn was positioned as the main star and hero while Frodo was more and more reduced to a whiny weakling, almost hated in the perception of the audience. But you prefer to lay back and hammer popcorn into your maw.

I didn't mind Arwen taking Glorfindel's place. But I would have not liked her showing up at Helm's Deep though. Having the elves show at all was a mistake.

One of if not THE best change they made from the books to the film adaptation is adding the elves to helm’s deep. The old alliances aren’t dead, and the elves sacrificed their own immortality to be there and defend an idea.

Haldir’s death was powerful exactly because it seemed meaningless. At the moment when he sees all the other fallen elves and little chance of victory, we briefly get removed from the good vs evil narrative and get an insight into the pointlessness of war.

@EmilWall

6 ай бұрын

This holds especially true considering that Tolkien took part in the first world war. He has denied any connection between LOTR and WW2 but I think his lived experience of the pointlessness of WW1 had a great impact on the story he wanted to tell.

Yeah giving her glorfindels part was the better idea

Heyyy this one was Great! Love *LOTR* 😄 ‘Edit’ Woahhh 7:13 You don’t have to put a Sword in her hand to make her Strong. Wow. Well put

Very good video. I think the inclusion of Arwen along with other elves at Helm's Deep was an interesting idea. As you say, it would improve her role and story compared to the books, but with the planned scenes for Eowyn in ROTK, I can understand why they did not follow through with it.

Pretty much every comment here was left by a man, which is rather telling. Tolkien had like three major female characters and 11 or 12 male ones. One female reviewer said that she felt including Arwen at Helm's Deep would have strengthened their bond and increased the female presence in the story. Arwen was the first cinematic victim of online misogyny. Liv Tyler received all sorts of sexist backlash after this footage was leaked. If Jackson and co. had understood the nature of trolls and the Internet at the time, they might not have caved and kept her in. For those saying it would have diminished Aragorn's story arc, they could have always had Arwen leave after Helm's Deep. Plenty more room for Aragorn to go it alone.

@battins72

7 ай бұрын

It'd be unbelievable for the descendant of the king to choose a masculine woman.

@Robsham1

7 ай бұрын

Sounds like you'd love rings of power.

@bradastra6111

7 ай бұрын

it almost like lord of the rings was written for man... what a shiett point you got there.

@reeyees50

7 ай бұрын

I am a man and just want to remind you that main character of the whole trilogy is frodo, not aragorn. No need to expand the aragorn story further over frodos

@drewidlifestyle7883

7 ай бұрын

Admittedly I’m a man, I’m not really against Arwen at helm’s deep, I don’t understand what it adds, but I’ll just say if they had included her with that red dress that would’ve thrown me for a loop like why wouldn’t she have armor even if just her leather gear from the forest?

I think keeping Arwen out Helm's Deep was a great decision. Part of the awesome impact of Eowyn was that nobody expected her to be in battle, much less against Angmar. Putting Arwen, warrior princess, into Helm's Deep would have taken away the impact of Eowyn in the battle of the Pelannor fields. Her being there would have been, "another warrior woman. Yawn", type of moment.

Quite thankful that Arwens place was with her people and not in a goofy tag-along way like with the Pirates movies released in the same years. It all came together with so much more impact during the end of Return of the King when she finally gets to be with Aragorn after the defeat of Sauron and the unity of Men.

I agree with the decision to replace Glorfindel with Arwen. As far as lotr is concerned, Glorfindel is a one off character like Bombadil that isn’t essential to the plot. Replacing him with Arwen gives more screen time for her and Aragorn’s relationship.

Having Arwen fight at Helm's Deep would have been a dreadful mistake. Eowyn wanted to fight, but her uncle would not allow it. That's a key plot point. Also, Eowyn had fallen in love with Aragorn and thought they had a future together. Another key plot point. And when Aragorn chooses the Paths of the Dead, Eowyn despairs. Another key plot point. All plot points would have been ruined, or at least greatly diminished, by having Arwen there, physically. I like what they did with Arwen. She is magically connected to Aragorn, and heals him from a distance. He still doesn't realize she has chosen a mortal life, and he fights at Helm's Deep to die with his comrades and Rohan (even though he is Estel, "Hope"). Then they win, and he thinks he's gained some time, but Elrond brings news of Arwen's mortality, and sickness. That's the final straw that drives Aragorn to risk everything to end the war as soon as possible.

Liv Tyler: "And what we came to realize was that you don't have to put a sword in her hands to make her Strong" So very true and film makers today seem to have forgot this... Looking at you Amazon.

I think they made the right call with Arwen, for the reasons laid out in this video. If she had been there, I'd b curious as to what she would have done after the battle if she was at Helm's Deep. Would she have traveled the Paths of the Dead and shown up on the Pelennor fields? Given the bond between her and Aragorn I can't see them parting ways again if she had traveled to Rohan.

I am glad they omitted Arwin at Helms Deep. It would have given the character to much plot armor taking away from the stand of the people of Rohan. Reading the book the only major difference I saw as they wasn't much fighting in the caves. Gimli wasn't really fighting outside but inside the caves from the Orcs coming in the backway if memory serves correct. Which wasn't really filmed but could have been neat.

Haldir's death isnt a useless scene. You see him looking around seeing dead elves. They are not even used to death amongst their kin yet willing to give their live for that alliance and what it stands for. The movie manages to have almost every scene carry depth. Like the secret door and toss a dwarf; it's comedic action. But also a moment for Aragorn growing into his leadership, experiencing exclusive trust. Even if its just an embarasing secret. Scenes without that, (Legolas' mumakil Leggie moment") intuitively feel misplaced and replaceable when it really only serves action and comedy.

The main point of Tolkien's story is divine providence, through the free actions of individuals. Other than that spot on fellow nerd. Gandalf sends Frodo knowing that it is a hopeless endeavor but has faith that they will succeed by Ilúvatar seeing them through. They would win through weakness not strength. He was a devote Catholic after all.

I loved her ring wraith chase scene in Fellowship. I thought it was well done without being over the top. That said, I think it was smart to remove her from Helm’s Deep. I think it makes her reunion with Aragorn in Return of the King that much more meaningful and as the video points out, it doesn’t undermine Eowyn’s story line.

Leaving out Tom and changing Saruman's ending was already too much, and I still cherish this trilogy above all.

@alexmartin628

7 ай бұрын

TeamSharkie