:
: : I am okay with a bigger role for Arwën, but not one as a heroine. That is simply out of context with the role of elvish women, how many of them played an active and offensive role? I can think of one; Luthien, and that is it (well there was Turgon's siter whose name eludes me for the moment). But Luthien had a very special mission ending in Eärendil's journey.
: : I percieve the elvish women as playing a "victorian" or roman role in Tolkien's perception, while the shieldmaidens of germanic fame stands out among the edain and northmen.
: : :-( Palle
: Agree with you completely. Tolkien's idea of women's role in all this may not be 'politically correct', but it is still his book that's being made into a movie, isn't it? I'm afraid Eowyn was right in his quite bitter words to Aragorn ( *All your words man but that I am a woman and therefore have to sit at home.. and after all is over, women have the leave to be burned in the house for the men will not need it any more* - something like it), women in Tolkien's books have mainly the role of sitting at home waiting for their men to return - pretty chauvinistic, but isn't the whole fanatasy literature a bit to tthe macho side? Some exceptionally strong woman characters play a more active role occasionally, but having Arwen ride around slaughtering enemies lft and right would be totally out of tone, IMHO.Anyway, they will have Eowyn to handle the more active side. Besides, literally not being able to do more than just sit and wait if her hero would be returning to claim her- I wouldn't consider this an easy thing to do, either.
: I believe that the question is just if the movie will be more or less true to the overall spirit of the book (squeezing the timeline a bit, for example, wouldn't be as bad as having a sword-wielding Arwen) or if it will just be a fantasy movie with no connection to the LOTR except the headline and a few character names.
: Kadri

Remaining true to the book, if we discount the appendices, would pretty much leave Arwen out of the story altogether. And yet it is his love for Arwen and his desire to marry her that is the main motivation for Aragorn to strive for the thrones of both Arnor and Gondor. Without these achievements he cannot marry her. But how much of that is made known while we're reading the book? How many times is Awen actually "seen" on the body of the book? I think that if any character could be removed entirely, it would be Arwen. If we change Aragorn's motivation, she is less important to the story than Tom Bombadil. The question then becomes, if we keep Arwen, how do make her presence meaningful? That means incorporating the tale from the appendix for one thing. It means showing Arwen more than once or twice through out the three films, and since Tolkien didn't give any guidance about it, it means adding dialogue for her to speak that wasn't in the book. When I first read the LOTR, I didn't bother with the appendix. At that time I didn't realize how much important material was there. So if a film version had been made then and had included the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen, I'd have accused the filmmakers of adding elements that were clearly not in the book. I would have bee wrong of course. So the question is, what do we mean by purism when it comes to the book? The book never shows Arwen making the banner, so should the film avoid that also? Or does pure mean that if Tolkien mentioned it, it okay to film it?