I won't hit you. I know what you mean. I agree that it was the intent. I also think that it may have failed. The females that already liked the books were also aware of feeling the attempt at manipulation with the overuse of Arwen. I heard a few talking in the bathroom, and they pretty much echoed my sentiments with regard to that. I don't think it really draws NEW female interest, because there really isn't enough "extra female character development" to counterbalance the other elements that non-fans aren't interested in.
I *do* think that they wanted an opportunity to add a little (and I do mean little) jiggly elf-tit for the male fans. You'd think that women who live as long with gravity as female elves do would invent a bra.
The romantic energy between Eowyn and Aragorn may have been overblown, but it was true to the book. The book kind of only gave a nod to it, but it was there - Eowyn fell immediately in love with Aragorn because he was magnetic and sexy and tragic, and Aragorn barely acknowledged her, except to inflame her interest by appreciating her courage, and to continue to be magnetic and sexy and tragic at her. Tolkien may not have done a lot of female character development in the books, but Eowyn was one that most females would immediately identify with and like. I think they did a really good job with that whole dynamic.
quote:
There's a bit too much Gimli, too. I don't remember how prominent he was in the books, but he does appear to be used for comic relief maybe a couple of times too often.
People are forgetting that in the books, the friendly rivalry between Legolas and Gimli was also comic relief. Movies make everything bigger, and they made that bigger too. Yes, Gimli is comic relief. Yes, it's done too much as compared to the books. No, I don't think it's that bad a thing. I was looking forward to seeing the part where Gimli smugly told Legolas he'd already taken two out, and Legolas informs him that he's at 17. Tolkien wrote it that way, and it was comic relief in print. It was just as cute on screen.
quote:
People who get too caught up in details of the original source are missing the point, though, in my opinion. Movies and the written word are completely different media. A great book does not always make a great movie without some adjustments to make it easier to visualize and easier to sit through (by keeping the length down). Movie makers also have the difficulty of presenting the story to the viewer at a defined pace. A reader of a book can pick the book and leave it at will and can go back to reread certain sections if desired. A filmmaker has to lay it all out there with a definite structure, concise exposition, and a concern for pacing to keep the viewer attentive. If you don't want to see an adapted screenplay of a novel, just don't go see it.
I agree completely. Moreover, I think that of all movie adaptations of books I've seen, this one is The Most respectful of the original source. I think it was done superbly.
Hear hear! I was enthralled. However, I do highly suggest to everyone that they make a pee-trip before sitting down in the theater. I spent the latter half of the movie clenching.
---
I am a delicate fucking flower.
https://beacons.ai/jesskent
