Chicks in the Flick?

[Delco]

A buddy and I were discussing this topic:
Is a movie (or any story?) better off without the vuloptious female character and all the time dedicated to exploring her assets and her realtionship with the main character, or is it better to leave out the love interest altogether?

We kept flip-flopping over this. While I love to look at a beautiful woman, if her presence doesn't really add to the story, I think it would be better to leave her on the cutting room floor. On the other hand, I don't rent porno, despite its availability and it is nice to watch a pretty woman. Although I do hate it when a chick scenes interfere with a good movie.

There may be no good solution. Maybe the answer is to rent more porno!

[cczernia]

I not really sure what you're talking about. Can you be more specific to the type of movies, or give specific examples where movies include woman only as sex objects

[Delco]

Sure,

Some of the movies we discussed:
Movies with women:
Any Comicbook based movie or James Bond Movie (love those Bond girls),
just about every horror movie where scantily clad women get chased down by unkillable psychos,
or Top Gun (the worlds absolute best looking physicist, hands down 8) !),
or The Matrix (the only "free" female in the world and she's a babe),
or Lord of the Rings (is Arwen really necessary?),
and even Alien and the Outlaw Jose Wales (though I really didn't mind it in these at all).

Movies we were glad there were no women/love interests:
Unforgiven
Predator
Rambo
Aliens
Resevoir Dogs
Fight Club (although there was a love interest it was certainly non-traditional)

There are many many more examples of course. Would those movies have been better without the girls? Sometimes they are important to the story like in Rocky or Princess Bride, or at least add some humor to the tale like in Willow, but did there need to be a female part at all in Running Man?

What do you think?

[cczernia]

Ok, for the most part there is a reason for including female characters in a movie other than as sexual objects.

In James Bond the woman are included as sex objects but also to show that Bond is the man with the ladies which is half his character. Without the women we don't see the true Bond.

As for bad horror flicks the entire point of the movie is to watch scantily clad woman get run down by monsters. There is no point to these movies.

As for comicbook movies (The Crow, Spiderman, The Hulk, X-men, Batman, Superman) I can't think of one where a female roll wasn't important and just included for sexual expoloitation. Many of the female character were attractive but so were the men (this is true for Hollywood in general)

I think you have something with "Lord of the Rings." There is little to no point in having Arwen in the movies. However, I don't think her inclusion was for men, but for women. I think her inclusion was to give female audiences a character to identify with, not to give men something else to look at.

Trinity's character was included for to round out the group (similar as in X-men) but the romance between her character and Neo's only enhances the conflict and the mystery of the Matrix.

There wouldn't be much of a movie if you removed Ripley from "Alien." As a matter of fact I like to joke that the them of Alien is no longer "man vs the unknown" but "Ripley vs the unknown."

No, I don't think the above movies would have been better without girls because most of those movies are not about men. You also need to remember that one of the greatest forms of conflict is the conflict between two people, ie romance and war. It is easier to relate to romance and as a result is the most popular form of conflict in stories. The other being war which consists of the movies you mentioned below. Men traditionally relate with war/violence more than woman do so we see less female characters.

[Wintermute]

You know, I don't think I would've liked LoTR nearly so much without Arwen, nor would I have liked The Matrix as much without Trinity.

[Skyman]

Bond Movies: Initially I think the women in Bond Movies were kinda objectified and with no range but as the movies progressed the women seemed stronger and did not rely on the knight in shinning armor syndrome. The women in the Bond movies tend to reflect the change in trend on how society as a whole see women. I could be wrong about this but it's just an observation.

Horror Flicks: In general most horror flicks have characters that are just there to look good till they die in a very ugly way

Jaime Lee Curtis and Sigourney Weaver: I don't think voluptous(sp?) applies with them. In each of their initial movies they did not look like bomb shells and looked more like the women who had common features or in some instances adrogynes qualities. I think the aspect about them that made them attractive to most men, myself included, was that they were strong, could carry their own and intelligent. They had character. Of course seeing Sigourney Weaver in her underwear for a glimpse might be point of debate but it had purpose and not just thrown in there. She didn't have a thong and it was functional undies too. She didn't have a body like Carmen Electra or J Lo either.

Lets face it Trinity set up the flow of the movie and was crucial to the movie. If you didn't have her in the beggining, the movie would have dragged. Looking good was part of the Matrix element and style.

I think having macho men with bulging muscles in the same movie is just as stupid as having a voluptuos woman in scantily clad clothes who scream on a drop of a dime. The reason being is that both are extreme charictures of both genders and take away from human elements that should be present in Horror and sci fi movies to make them more engaging. That's just my view

[cczernia]

[quote="Wintermute"]You know, I don't think I would've liked LoTR nearly so much without Arwen, nor would I have liked The Matrix as much without Trinity.[/quote]

I agree with you on Trinity, the movie just wouldn't have been the same without her. But, Arwen :?: Would the movie really have been that much different if she wasn't in it. I mean she only has 15 minutes of screen time out of the 6 hrs of film currently out. The only purpose she serves is to create a love interest along with some background for Aragorn which isn't really needed. I felt the scenes with Arwen did not fit the film and messed up the pacing. Perhaps I missing the big picture as I'm not that familiar with the trilogy.

[BlanchPrez]

Okay, I wasn't going to post to this thread originally, but I feel the need to.

On the point of Arwin. From the point of view of a writter, she was vital to the character of Aragorn. The Aragorn in the movies is a MUCH better character than the Aragorn in the books (blasphmey, I know). The reason for this? His tragic love interest in Arwin. It makes his character much more sympathetic to the audience, and this is very important when creating an epic character such as Aragorn, especially one that's supposed to be as moody as he is. Arwin is as much his motivation for doing what he is doing as is his desteny, and Arwin is the part that most people watching the movie can relate to (how many people do you know can related to "I'm helping this hobbit because it's my desteny?). As to the timing, yes, I agree that the flashback sceen in the second movie was perhaps a little too long, but it set up something that I'm sure will be important to the third movie. You have to remember that Tolkien was not much of a romantic. HIs stories were fantasy and mythology, but not very romantic from a love point of view. Even the stories that he based LoTR on had more love in it than his stories did. So, when Hollywood decided to do his trilogy as a movie series, they added love to the story to make it more widely acceptable, and, as you said earlier, draw women to the box office. But, I still stand by my point above that Arwin's addition makes Aragorn a much better character.

Chris

[Count Zero]

I have to disagree with you on some aspect to the use of Arwen in LoTR movies.

While I always found it odd that the story of Arwen and Aragorn was in the appendix, I can understand why Tolkien put it there... it would have screwed up story pacing.

Now, as to the movie, they had the ability to mix in the appendix really well and the blew it. Removing Glorfidel and putting Arwen in his place didn't bother me. The thing that really bothered me was the fact that Arwen took Frodo to the ford (it was Frodo's big chance to show he wasn't a wuss) and the fact that they just seemed to throw in the love interest so women wouldn't get bored with the action (which isn't needed in this day and age).

I think they just failed to integrate the appendix well. My problem isn't the changes... but the poor writing of the screenplay.

Jonathan

[Delco]

Wow, you guys are WAY too serious. This was meant as a lighthearted discussion at best, generally pointless and inane. Just a little fun making generalizations with movies. I never expected anyone to select individual examples and defend the merit of female roles in action/sci-fi type films on a case by case basis. I hope no one took this too seriously, and I certainly didn't intend on insulting anyone's feminist inclinations. I mean, I know I am a sexist pig, but I don't want to force my opinions on anyone.

[opwunder]

[quote="Delco"]
and even Alien and the Outlaw Jose Wales (though I really didn't mind it in these at all).
[/quote]

hmmm. Are you aware that the part was originally written for a man and that Weaver (auditioning for the, at that time, single female role) so impressed the director that he cast her....and they changed none of her dialogue because of this. She wasn't there just to look nice to young, impressionalble, horny men (who would go to a sci-fi horror movie anyway) but because she was able to portray a human being in dire circumstances. And, hey, I never once had trouble believing that she could do what she did.



While many female roles are added purly for the eye candy, so are special effects and I don't think any of us want Hollywood to stop with them... :nono:

[Neuro]

Aragorn and Arwen are actually my two favorites from the LotR movies. I hated the books (the ones I got through) with an almost perfect boredom. I think that passion and adventure go pretty well hand in hand. We have words for bands of men who do manly things and don't have anything to do with women. The politest I've ever heard referred to Alexander and his 'heroic companion'. Maybe that sounds rude, but what I'm getting at is that we have expectations about our favorite protagonists. Our heroes are typically guys who get the ladies. Beyond storytelling, you might find that we prefer slightly larger than life individuals in politics, too. Clinton, Kennedy, etc... beyond just eye candy for the audience, women and their relationships to men in movies (where relationship may just mean hole and a heartbeat) often serve the purpose of making our heroes all we expect them to be.

[BreakfastOfChampions]

[quote="Neuro"]Aragorn and Arwen are actually my two favorites from the LotR movies. I hated the books (the ones I got through) with an almost perfect boredom. I think that passion and adventure go pretty well hand in hand. We have words for bands of men who do manly things and don't have anything to do with women. The politest I've ever heard referred to Alexander and his 'heroic companion'. Maybe that sounds rude, but what I'm getting at is that we have expectations about our favorite protagonists. Our heroes are typically guys who get the ladies. Beyond storytelling, you might find that we prefer slightly larger than life individuals in politics, too. Clinton, Kennedy, etc... beyond just eye candy for the audience, women and their relationships to men in movies (where relationship may just mean hole and a heartbeat) often serve the purpose of making our heroes all we expect them to be.[/quote]

Its not rude at all. Fags can be heroic too. :P



I think Arwen was important because 1) She was a foil for Aragorn, and hope when everyone else was covered in dirt (save Gandalf)

2) She was a way of showing that elves really were different than humans

3) She was a cool character and her story was a pacing break from the hackfest

4) A character who kept the 'sacrifice for the better good' theme going in another way besides suffering with the ring.



Pure eye candy is okay, but I like efficient storytelling. If a character in general doesn't contribute or have anything to say, then I would prefer they were edited out.

[cczernia]

I still have to disagree. If Jackson had complete creative freedom I think the relationship between Eowyn and Aragorn should have been played out (but it can't because of the books). The end of "Return of the King" when Eowyn and Faramir are eyeing each other was the ultimate insult. Besides Arwen's appearance in "Fellowship" her scenes were like a whole other movie that had little significance to the actual movie and screwed up the pacing. It reminded me of the end of "Shanghai Noon" when Jackie Chan gets with the princess, and Owen Wilson gets with the Indian and you knew it would be much more interesting if it was reversed (you know... Jackie Chan get with Owen Wilsoon :shock: )



Arwen's scenes should have been limited to the Special Edition but she was included because there wasn't a balance of gender in the movie and to me was the biggest hollywood choice in the entire movie..


[quote="BreakfastOfChampions"]
1) She was a foil for Aragorn, and hope when everyone else was covered in dirt (save Gandalf)[/quote]
I don't see how. Other than looking down at his little amulet in a Romeo misses Juliet kind of way.
[quote="BreakfastOfChampions"]
2) She was a way of showing that elves really were different than humans[/quote]
How? She was the most human of all the elves (teenage girl rebelling against her parents so she can hang out with her biker boyfriend). I think Galadriel showed how different elves were.
[quote="BreakfastOfChampions"]
3) She was a cool character and her story was a pacing break from the hackfest[/quote]
I'll agree she was a cool character but I didn't like the pacing with her. I found the hobbit scenes to be a good break for the hackfest. Arwen was just in the wrong movie. It would be like throwing in random scenes of Sam's mother and how she misses her baby boy.
[quote="BreakfastOfChampions"]
4) A character who kept the 'sacrifice for the better good' theme going in another way besides suffering with the ring.[/quote]
How was Arwen's sacrifice for the better good? Seemed more like a selfish choice on her part.

[BlanchPrez]

Correct me if I am wrong (it's been known to happen), but didn't Eowyn end up wtih Faramir in the Appendices in the book?

Chris

[BreakfastOfChampions]

[quote="cczernia"]I still have to disagree. If Jackson had complete creative freedom I think the relationship between Eowyn and Aragorn should have been played out (but it can't because of the books). The end of "Return of the King" when Eowyn and Faramir are eyeing each other was the ultimate insult. Besides Arwen's appearance in "Fellowship" her scenes were like a whole other movie that had little significance to the actual movie and screwed up the pacing. It reminded me of the end of "Shanghai Noon" when Jackie Chan gets with the princess, and Owen Wilson gets with the Indian and you knew it would be much more interesting if it was reversed (you know... Jackie Chan get with Owen Wilsoon :shock: )



Arwen's scenes should have been limited to the Special Edition but she was included because there wasn't a balance of gender in the movie and to me was the biggest hollywood choice in the entire movie..



[quote:5dd38734cb="BreakfastOfChampions"]

1) She was a foil for Aragorn, and hope when everyone else was covered in dirt (save Gandalf)[/quote]
I don't see how. Other than looking down at his little amulet in a Romeo misses Juliet kind of way.

[/quote:5dd38734cb]

Yup, that's the way, you know, kind of that My inspiration for hacking up orcs is...I think Gandalf is sexy er no wait! There's this amulet!
[quote="cczernia"]
[quote:5dd38734cb="BreakfastOfChampions"]

2) She was a way of showing that elves really were different than humans[/quote]
How? She was the most human of all the elves (teenage girl rebelling against her parents so she can hang out with her biker boyfriend). I think Galadriel showed how different elves were.

[/quote:5dd38734cb]

Can't disagree that Galadriel didn't do that. But she showed another facet of elfiedom.
[quote="cczernia"]
[quote:5dd38734cb="BreakfastOfChampions"]

3) She was a cool character and her story was a pacing break from the hackfest[/quote]
I'll agree she was a cool character but I didn't like the pacing with her. I found the hobbit scenes to be a good break for the hackfest. Arwen was just in the wrong movie. It would be like throwing in random scenes of Sam's mother and how she misses her baby boy.

[/quote:5dd38734cb]

I disagree. But hey, we're in the lovely land of art, where no one is wrong.
[quote="cczernia"]
[quote:5dd38734cb="BreakfastOfChampions"]

4) A character who kept the 'sacrifice for the better good' theme going in another way besides suffering with the ring.[/quote]
How was Arwen's sacrifice for the better good? Seemed more like a selfish choice on her part.[/quote:5dd38734cb]



But what about the child they could have? :cry: That child would never come into being if she didn't stick around and get some Ranger Ragin'.



I guess you could see it as a selfish choice, *but* the impact was her, and Elrond (hmmm so *thats* how it is in their family). If I'm not mistaken, Middle Earth Elves are either 1) Immortal or 2) fraggin old. She that up for Aragorn. Which, when I think of it, I don't know many chicks who would give up eternal life for me...(*insert wacky joke here. There's just too many for me to choose from*)



And don't you make me nest damnass quotes like that again!!! :x

[cczernia]

[quote="BreakfastOfChampions"]
1) She was a foil for Aragorn, and hope when everyone else was covered in dirt (save

Yup, that's the way, you know, kind of that My inspiration for hacking up orcs is...I think Gandalf is sexy er no wait! There's this amulet![/quote]
Yeah, but we didn't need Arwen's side to understand what that Amulet did. He could look down at the amulet, give a sad look, and the audience would know that he is hurtin for Arwen. We didn't need the reminders that Arwen was hurtin for Aragorn.
[quote="BreakfastOfChampions"]
Can't disagree that Galadriel didn't do that. But she showed another facet of elfiedom. [/quote]
Between Galadriel, Legolis, Celedorn, and the armies of elves I think we get a good idea of what elfiedom is like. If anything Arwen was unique among her race.
[quote="BreakfastOfChampions"]
I disagree. But hey, we're in the lovely land of art, where no one is wrong.[/quote]
Fair enough. We'll agree to disagree on the pacing.
[quote="BreakfastOfChampions"]
But what about the child they could have? :cry: That child would never come into being if she didn't stick around and get some Ranger Ragin'.



I guess you could see it as a selfish choice, *but* the impact was her, and Elrond (hmmm so *thats* how it is in their family). If I'm not mistaken, Middle Earth Elves are either 1) Immortal or 2) fraggin old. She that up for Aragorn. Which, when I think of it, I don't know many chicks who would give up eternal life for me...(*insert wacky joke here. There's just too many for me to choose from*)
[/quote]

I got the impression that Erwen was young for an elf and as a result her actions seem on par with a raging teenager. Like I said "the rebel teenager who wants to run off with her biker boyfriend even if her father gets rid of her trustfund :D )

[BreakfastOfChampions]

I kinna handle the nesting!




[quote="cczernia"]
Yeah, but we didn't need Arwen's side to understand what that Amulet did. He could look down at the amulet, give a sad look, and the audience would know that he is hurtin for Arwen. We didn't need the reminders that Arwen was hurtin for Aragorn.
[/quote]

Don't get me wrong, but if we got was an amulet, I think some of the audience would have missed the connection between them. Sure, it could have been eliminated, but 'message for the minute' is pretty high. I'd would have made the editing decision to keep it.
[quote="cczernia"]
Between Galadriel, Legolis, Celedorn, and the armies of elves I think we get a good idea of what elfiedom is like. If anything Arwen was unique among her race.
[/quote]
I'll agree to disagree on that one. I think it was her uniqueness that defined the elves further.
[quote="cczernia"]
I got the impression that Erwen was young for an elf and as a result her actions seem on par with a raging teenager. Like I said "the rebel teenager who wants to run off with her biker boyfriend even if her father gets rid of her trustfund :D )[/quote]
Well, younger than Elrond aint saying much. To me there was the implied 'choice' between Elrond and Aragon, with Elrond being so old and wise that he will present his argument, but not be a prick about it. So I didn't see her as necessarily 'rebelling' but definitely making her own choices.

[cczernia]

[quote="BreakfastOfChampions"]
Don't get me wrong, but if we got was an amulet, I think some of the audience would have missed the connection between them. Sure, it could have been eliminated, but 'message for the minute' is pretty high. I'd would have made the editing decision to keep it.
[/quote]
This sort of goes with the other scenes that were cut. I've only seen the extended version of "Fellowship of the Ring" and there is the seen where Galadriel hands out the cool magic items which play important roles later on in the film. I found this scene to be as important as the scenes with Arwen. Interesting to see bits of detail but mostly irrelivant.



Not to mention the longing stair at something is a Hollywood staple. We wouldn't even need to know who Arwen is to know that Aragorn is missing someones he loves. Put a face to it and most audiences will remember what is going on. Everyone except those goobs out in Lakeside.
[quote="BreakfastOfChampions"]
I'll agree to disagree on that one. I think it was her uniqueness that defined the elves further. [/quote]
Perhaps, but I didn't need the elves to be that well defined. I got the idea that the elves were leaving and Arwen was upset about it from the first movie. I didn't need a constant reminder.
[quote="BreakfastOfChampions"]
Well, younger than Elrond aint saying much. To me there was the implied 'choice' between Elrond and Aragon, with Elrond being so old and wise that he will present his argument, but not be a prick about it. So I didn't see her as necessarily 'rebelling' but definitely making her own choices.[/quote]

My point wasn't that she was young and rebelling. My point was that the only reason she left was because she was selfish and she loved Aragorn (in the way a young rebelling girl would). She didn't leave to save the world, or any other reason than she wanted to be with her boyfriend.



If those scenes had been removed we would have lost a little on Aragorn, and a little on the state of the elves. It doesn't even change Aragorn's motivations which are based on duty and honor.

[Neuro]

Cczernia writes:
[quote]I got the impression that Erwen was young for an elf and as a result her actions seem on par with a raging teenager. Like I said "the rebel teenager who wants to run off with her biker boyfriend even if her father gets rid of her trustfund )[/quote]

I thought quite the opposite, that her father was so old and removed that he had forgotten passion and acted selfishly to send her away. Does youth necessarily negate the value of true love? I think it's an extremely cynical standpoint to imagine that any love that grips the young must be childish. Tolkien seems like more of a romantic to me. Even if I don't like his writing style, I can see threads of hope, romance, and heroism that capture the best of what is possible in man, not what is worst.

[BreakfastOfChampions]

[quote="Neuro"]Cczernia writes:
[quote]I got the impression that Erwen was young for an elf and as a result her actions seem on par with a raging teenager. Like I said "the rebel teenager who wants to run off with her biker boyfriend even if her father gets rid of her trustfund )[/quote]

I thought quite the opposite, that her father was so old and removed that he had forgotten passion and acted selfishly to send her away. Does youth necessarily negate the value of true love? I think it's an extremely cynical standpoint to imagine that any love that grips the young must be childish. Tolkien seems like more of a romantic to me. Even if I don't like his writing style, I can see threads of hope, romance, and heroism that capture the best of what is possible in man, not what is worst.[/quote]

Its been a long, long time since I remember, but what was her fate after RotK? Was Elrond's vision of the future gone because she had chosen to be mortal? I mean, Elrond's vision didn't account for her dying of age, just being this kind of meloncholy spirit. In a way, Elrond's position is understandable if her fate *was* to watch Aragorn die and then become this roving despressed spirit. (Though she'd fit in with modern day goths), *or*

She dies a moral. Neither option for Arawen is very happy for Elrond. He outlives his daughter, only to confront Neo.

[Skyman]

[quote="BreakfastOfChampions"][quote:10bb32cff0="Neuro"]Cczernia writes:
[quote]I got the impression that Erwen was young for an elf and as a result her actions seem on par with a raging teenager. Like I said "the rebel teenager who wants to run off with her biker boyfriend even if her father gets rid of her trustfund )[/quote]

I thought quite the opposite, that her father was so old and removed that he had forgotten passion and acted selfishly to send her away. Does youth necessarily negate the value of true love? I think it's an extremely cynical standpoint to imagine that any love that grips the young must be childish. Tolkien seems like more of a romantic to me. Even if I don't like his writing style, I can see threads of hope, romance, and heroism that capture the best of what is possible in man, not what is worst.[/quote]

Its been a long, long time since I remember, but what was her fate after RotK? Was Elrond's vision of the future gone because she had chosen to be mortal? I mean, Elrond's vision didn't account for her dying of age, just being this kind of meloncholy spirit. In a way, Elrond's position is understandable if her fate *was* to watch Aragorn die and then become this roving despressed spirit. (Though she'd fit in with modern day goths), *or*

She dies a moral. Neither option for Arawen is very happy for Elrond. He outlives his daughter, only to confront Neo.[/quote:10bb32cff0]



sadly Elrond didn't realize the trip west was to the MATRIX.

[Foxbat]

[quote="Skyman"]sadly Elrond didn't realize the trip west was to the MATRIX.[/quote]

You have unearthed the conspriatorial link between LOTR and the Matrix. Tolkien makes it seem that the elves disappear forever when the really were puppet masters that masterminded the enslavement of the human race by the machines. Elrond himself was later braintaped and became agent Smith.



Daniel

[Skyman]

[quote="Foxbat"][quote:3bf74033b1="Skyman"]sadly Elrond didn't realize the trip west was to the MATRIX.[/quote]

You have unearthed the conspriatorial link between LOTR and the Matrix. Tolkien makes it seem that the elves disappear forever when the really were puppet masters that masterminded the enslavement of the human race by the machines. Elrond himself was later braintaped and became agent Smith.



Daniel[/quote:3bf74033b1]



Yes, and Galadriel becomes the Oracle after putting chocolate chips on lambas bread to make great cookies. 'After you have one you'll feel right as rain.'

[cczernia]

[quote="Neuro"]Cczernia writes:
[quote]I got the impression that Erwen was young for an elf and as a result her actions seem on par with a raging teenager. Like I said "the rebel teenager who wants to run off with her biker boyfriend even if her father gets rid of her trustfund )[/quote]

I thought quite the opposite, that her father was so old and removed that he had forgotten passion and acted selfishly to send her away. Does youth necessarily negate the value of true love? I think it's an extremely cynical standpoint to imagine that any love that grips the young must be childish. Tolkien seems like more of a romantic to me. Even if I don't like his writing style, I can see threads of hope, romance, and heroism that capture the best of what is possible in man, not what is worst.[/quote]

Ok, just to clear some things up. I don't hate Arwen, I don't hate her story. What I don't like is her story in the context of the "Lord of the Rings." To me it is a side story, a minor detail that didn't need to make into the final cuts of the film.



Her fathers motivation was partially selfish as typical between a father and daughter. Elrond was also a leader of the people and was expecting all the elves to leave. I'm sure he would try and talk any of the elves out of leaving had they the same delimma as Arwen. Overall, I agree, he selfishly did not want his daughter to leave him.



Unfortunatly, we are only given Aragorn's and Arwen's love after the main relationship. We had no idea what that relationship entailed. It could have been a one night romp in the forest, or it could have been a cheriched love that lasted years (which would still have been a one night romp in the forest to Arwen :) )



Either way, you can see Arwen's choice as romantic, heroic, or hopeful but it was still selfish. Perhpas if her conflict mirrored that of Aragorn, or the hobbits than I could see the relevance of her story. But from what I've seen it fails to add anything to LotR other than a little Romance, or mental eye candy for those who would like some romance.

[BreakfastOfChampions]

I hates Arwen, hates her forever. Shaking up with that half-shaven human. You know he's shouting "Who's your daddy" throughout Minas Tirith!

No wonder Elrond looks so annoyed.

"Still not king"

[DevJannz]

Cczernia,

I get the impression from your posts that you have never read the books (though I could be wrong). The movies were great but they did not always do a good job of portraying things the way they were in the books.

Arwen is almost 3000 years old at the time of the War of the Ring. By the time Aragorn leaves Rivendell to help Frodo, they have been engaged for over 40 years. Aragorn in the movie was portrayed as a loner who did not want to take on the mantle of King, but in the books it is quite different. Aragorn in the books has been working quietly and slowly for years preparing for the day when he may be called upon to fulfill the hope of his fathers by becoming King of both Gondor and Arnor (the northern kingdom of the Dunedain). When Elrond found out that Arwen and Aragorn were engaged he tried to forbade it, but seeing that he would not be able to he place a provision on it. He told Aragorn that he would not let Arwen marry him unless he fulfilled his destiny and became King.

Just a little background for you.

[cczernia]

[quote="DevJannz"]Cczernia,



I get the impression from your posts that you have never read the books (though I could be wrong). The movies were great but they did not always do a good job of portraying things the way they were in the books.



Arwen is almost 3000 years old at the time of the War of the Ring. By the time Aragorn leaves Rivendell to help Frodo, they have been engaged for over 40 years. Aragorn in the movie was portrayed as a loner who did not want to take on the mantle of King, but in the books it is quite different. Aragorn in the books has been working quietly and slowly for years preparing for the day when he may be called upon to fulfill the hope of his fathers by becoming King of both Gondor and Arnor (the northern kingdom of the Dunedain). When Elrond found out that Arwen and Aragorn were engaged he tried to forbade it, but seeing that he would not be able to he place a provision on it. He told Aragorn that he would not let Arwen marry him unless he fulfilled his destiny and became King.



Just a little background for you.[/quote]

Thanks for the background. You're right, I've never read the books (actually, I read The Hobbit and Fellowship when I was 13). One thing to remember is that the book and movie are two different things. "Lord of the Rings" the movies is BASED off of "Lord of the Rings" the book. It is not "Lord of the Rings" the book turned into a movie.



With that in mind certain plot elements may be important or play out extremely well in the book but will fall dry in the movie. I think this especially holds true from you tell me about the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen. The relationship seems to be important in the book but falls dry and out of place in the movie.



What do you think. Did Jackson manage to capture the romance between Arwen and Aragorn. If not did it need more or less film??