Replies

I think Arwen’s character was written into the movie to please feminists. Otherwise the LOTRs is a story about male heroes taking action.

The scene with Arwen at the river is invention.

Yes, that was just to give her a larger role ( I believe in the book it was a male elf who took Frodo there). That being said, there isn’t much “feminist” about some home-body who just wants to marry & bear a son...

Theoden’s daughter was more “male” (but prettier), but even she wasn’t too tough. In fact, she’s saved by a guy half her size...

Some scenes of invention are good. There is one in the 2 towers where Eowen (?) makes inedible soup that Aragorn has to pretend to eat to save her feelings. It gives a quick but strong reminder that Aragorn is a caring person while also capable of fighting.

The introduction of Xena was the most jarring change. Frodo NEEDED scenes prior to Rivendell to show he had strength - otherwise his offer to take the ring is stupid. As filmed, a guy who can’t walk out of the Shire without aid is going to take the ring to Mordor? YGBSM! No one would trust the character in the movie with that - but in the book, he had already shown great courage and leadership against the Barrow wights (spelling?) and is willing to take on the Nine.

The primary character in the book is Frodo, but in the movie he is just a short guy who needs to be rescued a lot. Maybe that was required to get funding. Maybe it was driven by the actor not having what it takes to carry the film. Or maybe Jackson lost sight of what the books are about.

This isn’t to take away from what Jackson achieved. When I watch the movies, I’m aware that the director did a task well that I couldn’t handle one day of, let alone the entire effort.