Are women just bored of the rings?

[Shadowdancer]

To use LotR as a case-in-point, I'm sure some demographics goon at New Line, when the movies were first floated, said "It won't play to women. There's only one strong female character in the book, and she doesn't even show up until midway through Act II, and doesn't get to do anything 'strong' until midway through Act III." (I'm speaking of Eowyn, obviously) Now I'm not saying the demographers were responsible for beefing up Arwen's character, but tell me they didn't give that particular change their seal of approval. Tell me building up Arwen's character, casting her as one of the few "names" that average moviegoers would recognize, and proceeding to present her as a centerpiece at every interview and press junket for the film didn't maybe sell a few more tickets.

Marketing isn't an exact science, but it's not all hokum. Hollywood is best described as "cruelly meritocratic". If it didn't succeed (in dollars made) more often than it failed, those people would be out of work.

If you are saying Liv Tyler was cast as Arwen to appeal to female moviegoers, I would say you are wrong. She was more likely cast to appeal (as eye candy) to male moviegoers than as a draw to female moviegoers.

As far as building up Arwen's character, that likely had less to do with marketing and more to do with the fact that two-thirds of the team that adapted the books into the scripts were females.

Hollywood doesn't succeed in dollars made more often than it fails. There are between 200 and 250 movies released each year. The average movie costs $50 million to make. Add on promotion and distribution costs, that raises the budget to close to $100 million. That's why Hollywood makes such a big deal about movies grossing $100 million -- that's considered to be the break-even point.

Last year, only 25 movies grossed $100 million or more. And that was a record. The top grossing film (so far) was "Finding Nemo" with $340 million. So it paid for itself, and two other films. Even if every film that grossed more than $100 million paid for itself and two other films, that's only 75 films breaking even.

Hollywood is notorious for charging off expenses from one film, which bombed at the box office, against the budget of a film that grossed more than it cost. So in effect, no movie in Hollywood ever makes a profit. That's why star actors and directors will sometimes, instead of a salary, take a percentage of the gross, and not a percentage of the profit. A few decades ago, they took a percentage of the profit, and got burned because the movie never showed a profit.

There was a high-profile case a few years back involving the Frank Sinatra movie "The Manchurian Candidate." It was a big box office success. But according to the studio's books, it never showed a profit because they charged off expenses from other, less successful films against its budget. Sinatra got pissed and sued the studio. Not that this was an isolated case; it went on all the time. It was just that Sinatra was one of the few people with enough power to take on the studios and not worry about career ramifications. Because this lawsuit kept the movie tied up for so long, for years it wasn't available on video tape -- and later DVD. The studio and Sinatra eventually settled the lawsuit.

The practice came up again in a lawsuit filed by columnist Art Buchwald over failure to get paid for originating the idea for "Coming to America." And the practice of charging off expenses from one film against the budget of another still goes on.

And there are more people "out of work" in Hollywood -- in the film industry -- than there are people working in Hollywood in the film industry. That's why so many people in the industry take other jobs, waiting for that big break, or that next big break. And that's not just for actors -- it's true for directors, writers, and all sorts of technical people. As well as people on the business end -- accountants, marketing people, PR and advertising.

 

[Storm Raven]

That's a "what if" statement.

Except that it isn't. You don't seem to understand what a "what if" statement is. My statement is a examination of what actually happened based upon the information we know. We know that striking the Witch-King has associated negative consequences, including the incapacitation of the assailant and the destruction of the assailant's weapon. We know that these consequences are associated with no other incident in the books.

We know that Eowyn suffered these consequences after her encounter with the Witch-King at the Battle of Pellinore Fields. Hence, we know that she struck the Witch-King. Since her strike occurred after Merry's attack, we know that the Witch-King was still alive and corporeal when Eowyn attacked. Thus, Merry's blow didn't kill the Witch-King, and amounts to an "assist" for Eowyn's killing stroke. It isn't a "what if", it is a "what did happen" statement.

If I were unkind, I would say something about digging one's own grave. As it is, I will simply ask why you are entitled to make "what if" arguments and I am not?

Since I'm not making "what if" arguments, your point is moot.

Not true. (Tolkien, LotR, Appendix A, my emphasis).
Tolkien wasn't making a PC point at all; he was playing with words - something he does on at least one other occasion.

As his text makes clear, Eowyn did the killing, Merry did the distracting. Merry's efforts, while brave and necessary, didn't fulfill the prophecy by themselves.

 

[Storm Raven]

There's no proof of that, and it's not really a sure thing. We can't say if the Witch King was destroyed at that time, or he would have reformed a week later.

We do know that he doesn't appear to be present at the battle before the gates of Mordor which takes place more than a week after he is destroyed by Eowyn. Given that the rest of the nazgul are present, one would expect him to be there too, if he was able to do so.

Her sword being effective because it was her sword doesn't make sense to me. Her sword doing more because the Witch King was particularily vulnerable at that juncture in time, maybe.

The hand that wields a weapon (or other tool) is in many cases just as important as the weapon (or tool) itself. Kingsfoil in the hands of anyone by Aragorn is a weed, in his hands, it is a potent healing herb. The ring in Frodo's hands grants invisibility, the ring in Saruman's hands is a source of power and domination. Why does it not make sense in a myth system in which the personage of the actor is important in so many other instances, that the personage of the actor would be important in this instance?

The thing is, besides taking the discussion too seriously, you've decided that the prediction meant Eowyn and that is all you can see.

No, what I see is that the prediction was fulfilled by Eowyn.