(Spoiler Caution) I am back, and late, but ... some opinions of mine on TTT

[Edena_of_Neith]

Ok ...

In my opinion ...

We need a 4 hour The Two Towers, in the extended version.
There are simply too many things going on in TTT, and a fuller treatment of many of them is needed.

In my opinion ...

If Arwen is shown leading the Host of Rivendell to Helm's Deep, and if she is shown fighting, the film will be more powerful, and the story will be strengthened and also make somewhat more sense.
If Elrond is shown going to Lothlorien to consult with Galadriel, the story will be strengthened and make more sense.
If Elrond is shown speaking with Arwen concerning her final decision (I would consider going to Helm's Deep a final decision) the story will be strengthened, and make more sense.

In my opinion ...

Any fighting carried out by Eowyn in the defense of the civilians hiding in the Glittering Caves (behind the Hornburg), and by anyone else who retreated there (as was the case in the book) would strengthen her character, and improve the story.

The arrival and aid of the Huorns and Ents at the Battle of Helm's Deep, if shown, would greatly strengthen and improve the story. ESPECIALLY considering the portrayal of Treebeard and the Ents in the Theatrical Version of TTT.

In my opinion, the addition of the above material - in the Extended TTT - would CRUCIALLY improve the film.
In my opinion, the deletion of the above scenes crucially weakened the film.

In my opinion ...

The alteration to Faramir's character, although perhaps necessary in a film, weakened Tolkien's story and used crucial time needed for other scenes.
I do honestly feel that Faramir's strength, in resisting the Ring, could have been portrayed, could have been shown (although I admit I do not know exactly how, on screen, but I am sure Peter Jackson of all people could have done it.)
Instead, the Crossroads and Minas Morgul should have been shown. After all, those were important milestones on the way to Torich Ungol. No need to show Shelob, but Minas Morgul would have been a worthy addition, no?
Whether the issuance of the Great Darkness, the Great Signal going off, and the onset of the Morgul Host, should have been shown in the TTT film or held off until the ROTK film, is a decision I am neutral on.

I feel the portrayal of Treebeard was great, until he proved himself an idiot.
Treebeard had good reason to be neutral, but he already knew of the destruction to his friends the trees ... and Treebeard was OLD (read: he was wise, and wise beings tend to make wise decisions, not stupid ones.)
The Onslaught of the Ents should not have been based on a whim (or, in this case, a trick of Pippin's, smart as that hobbit was) but rather upon something more solidly founded in thought.
In other words, scrap it, and in the extended version use Tolkien's story instead.
Just my opinion.

In my opinion ...

The coming of the elves of Lothlorien was great!
The coming of the elves of Rivendell, with Arwen at their head, would also be great ... but it wasn't there.
If there were large numbers of elves (from both hosts) who survived the battle, this should be shown.
And, if neither Lothlorien nor Rivendell sent their full forces, this should be shown, or hinted at (after all, Lothlorien would be assailed repeatedly within the next two weeks, and all the woods in it's fringe areas burned. A minor point here ...)

In my opinion ...

There is a need to show Frodo and the Ring fighting for control.
There is not a need for Frodo to face the Lord of the Nazgul at Osgiliath (although showing Osgiliath itself, like that, I thought was a great idea, and I would compliment Peter Jackson on that one!)
If you take the book at face value, not Sam, nor Frodo, nor Faramir, nor anyone else (except three very special and valiant beings under special circumstances) ever had the strength to stand against the Lord of the Nazgul in his full demonic strength ... everyone else had this tendency to RUN (which was wise) or HIDE (which was also wise) when he showed up.
Besides, if the Lord of the Nazgul knew the Ring was in Osgiliath, then it could not be with faraway Aragorn in Rohan, now could it?
Why not show the battle of wills in Morgul Vale, where Frodo turned away the mind of the Lord of the Nazgul as he sat at the head of the Morgul Host, instead? That was no small feat on Frodo's part! (had Legolas or Gimli of battle renown, or the valiant Aragorn, tried to pull that stunt in Imlad Morgul, they would have been very, very, very dead.) Frodo overcame the Ring AND the Lord of the Nazgul, with a little help from his cloak and the Phial of Galadriel.
Just my opinion. Peter Jackson is a great filmmaker, but Tolkien was a great writer.

I am VERY GLAD Aragorn did not show the chauvinistic traits and say the stupid words that he said in ROTK (the Passing of the Grey Company) to Eowyn.
Cheers to Peter Jackson on that one. For that was my least favorite part in all the trilogy, that exchange.
Theoden and Eomer could be excused, since they were medieval folk in a medieval society. Aragorn could not be excused - in my opinion Tolkien briefly strayed and had Aragorn speak out of character, for Aragorn - by any medievalism. The Numenorians were more lofty than this, Aragorn was schooled by the elves, and Aragorn himself treated people (including women) as people, not as ... to use Eowyn's words ... wetnurses.
So yes, cheers to Peter Jackson on this. It is not political correctness (I think Eowyn would vomit at the term), but keeping true to the true character of Aragorn. Of course, others may disagree with me here ...

I must presume the Theatrical Version was made for public consumption, and certainly it has been heartily sampled, to the tune of 300 million dollars here in America alone.
I hope the extended version is more truly Tolkienish, though. A Tolkien Purist I am not, but in this case, and in my opinion, Tolkien did it better (except, as I have pointed out, concerning Aragorn's words with Eowyn. I think Peter Jackson did it better there.)

Now, assuming a fair number of folk disagree with the above and think my criticisms are unwarranted (If you disliked it, then perhaps you will have a chance to do it better! they might say ...) here are some compliments:

Gollum was truly spectacular.
Visually.
Verbally.
In the interpretation. In what was added to Tolkien's story, strengthened the character.

The interplay between Frodo and Gollum was spectacular, and it was amazing how this subtle and philosophical theme was compressed into the film.
The interplay between Sam and Gollum was spectacular as well.
The interplay between Frodo and Sam was great.
The interplay between Frodo and Faramir concerning Gollum was TRULY WELL DONE.

Treebeard was spectacular (except for his unwisdom which wasn't in the book, as I have said.)
The Ents were spectacular.
The Entish Assault on Isengard was jaw dropping.

The Battle of Helm's Deep was truly well done, and in my opinion very faithful to the book. Right down to the geography and exact construction of the Hornburg. (Heh, the blackpowder explosion and those gigantic ballistae with Uruk-Hai clinging to the great ladders were nice additions.)
The sortie by Aragorn and Gimli was grand. Talk about heroism! (Yeah, I know, Eomer was supposed to be involved ...)
The onslaught of Theoden was very good. He needed more riders with him, though (they had more survivors than THAT.)

I thought the Warg Rider battle was spectacular. I jumped in my seat as the two forces crashed together, and so did those with me.

I thought everything involving Arwen was well done. So well done, that it becomes necessary for Arwen's final decision to be shown (that is, her arrival at Helm's Deep, which as I previously said would GREATLY strengthen the story, in my opinion.)
I do not think Aragorn's near death (an addition to Tolkien's writing) was a waste of time. It was well done, and it contributed to a number of themes.

I LIKED Ugluk and Grishnakh, even if their parts were short. (Nothing like orc for dinner, and nothing like the mad cannibal chasing you into Fangorn Forest!)
Heh, I assume their parts will be lengthened in the extended version ... give us more of good ole Ugluk and Grishnakh! Uruk-Hai and Mordor Orc at their finest!

That scene in which Aragorn kicked the orc helmet and yelled will be a Classic. Especially since Viggo actually broke his toe kicking the helmet, and the yell was a real yell of pain. Viggo kept himself in control, and used the yell to lead in to a great bit of acting. Cheers to Viggo!

I thought Sauron, sitting (hanging?) up there at the top of Barad Dur was neat.
Far better than some unknown Something sitting in a room in the top of the Dark Tower!
Heh. He was most definitely THERE (he wasn't really there in the book), and he was MEAN looking, and you just knew he was gloating, angry, and a whole bunch of other appropriately Sauronic things all at once, up there. Cheers to Peter Jackson! (heh ... would YOU walk into Mordor, with THAT in plain sight, and you in plain sight of Him?!)

Give me as much of Galadriel as possible. Cate Blanchett is a great actress, and Peter Jackson's Galadriel is a strong character. (Someone really lovable, and really terrifying, both. Nevermind her omniscience, her body language and way of speaking (as acted by Cate Blanchett) are enough in themselves!)

Ummm ... I liked Eomer quite a lot. Too bad there is not more of him in the film. (I suppose that in the extended version he badmouths Galadriel, or at least I hope so. Thus Gimli can badmouth him, and we see why the near fatalities early in the TTT.)

Give me more of Eowyn. Her love for Aragorn was shown, and well portrayed. But give me more. She is someone I want to know all about.

If there is more to give, give me more of Gollum. Jar Jar Binks he is NOT. Gollum is Oscar material, in my opinion, and the more I see of this marvel of acting and CGI technology, the happier I will be.

(still under construction, since with TTT it is hard to know where to start and where to end. I think everyone might agree with that one, including Peter Jackson!)

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Yeah, I thought TTT was really quite a good film, but it had some really problematic deletions (like Arwen and her Host going to Helm's Deep not being shown), and some problematic alterations to Tolkien (such as Treebeard's level of wisdom, and Faramir's thinking and choices ... however, that is merely my opinion, folks.)
Certainly, the film needs some serious critiques. For although it was a great film, I think it could have been even better yet.

I would like to add that I really liked the entire Morannon scene.
Someone in my family spoke of Frodo just walking into Mordor through the nearest convenient opening in the mountains.
He won't be talking like that after seeing the Black Gate! (that's right, when Sauron put up that No Trespassing sign, he MEANT it.)
Another kudos to Peter Jackson, and ... heh ... no criticisms about this scene.

I very much liked the portrayal of the Dead Marches.
A classic case of show and not tell. After an experience like THAT one, I could well believe they might actually listen to Gollum when he says: do not look at the lights!
If the Dead (well, ok, the Undead) are portrayed thus by Peter Jackson, I shiver with delight at the prospect of his portrayal of the Paths of the Dead in ROTK ...

Prior to the release of TTT, I guessed that the balrog would be making an Encore, probably at the beginning of the film.
I was right. Heh.
I liked the two scenes of Gandalf and Balrog, but I do wish the mountainside had broken when the balrog fell on it. (rock may be hard stuff, but apparently balrogs are tougher yet, even dead balrogs. In the book, the mountainside did shatter.)

If the One (God) gave Gandalf renewed life, I wish this could be better explained in the film ... if that is possible.
Having read Tolkien's Letters, I wonder if the translation can be made? Tolkien gave compelling reasons for Gandalf's return (a free resurrection it was NOT.) Could Tolkien's philosophical take be translated? If yes, then it should be, in my opinion.

If Gandalf's resurrection had been a mundane affair of: well, you gotta finish the job, kid, and we'll bring you back until the job's done ... then it would be only fair that Sauron gets a free resurrection too, after the Ring is destroyed.
After all, if the good maia Gandalf gets a free resurrection, the bad maia Sauron should too ... and then, the good guys have to do everything all over again, no?

Obviously, the above (and absurd) situation was not the case in Tolkien's works.
But it is not obvious in the film. Thus, we have a problem here.

 

[Ranger REG]

You want more scene regarding Gandalf's "resurrection"?

BTW, AFAIC, Sauron the "bad maia" is like Lucifer who has fallen from grace. Don't think he's gonna deserve a resurrection from the One God, since he switched team.

 

[jdavis]

I already posted my feelings on the movie elsewhere (didn't like TTT all that much) but I thought I'd chime in here to say that I don't think you will be all that happy with what does get added into the Special edition TTT. Your changes are pretty sweeping, I don't see Jackson changing any storyline at all, he will just be adding scenes (I figure the Gimli-Eomer scene where they discuss Galadriel will make it) I really doubt that anything dealing with the Ents will get changed or that they will show up at Helm's Deep (I wish they would of too) Huorns were not even introduced in the movie and I really doubt they will make the extended version, it would change the whole structure of the Battle of Helm's Deep as shown in the movie.

I like the suggestions, (except the part about Arwin getting more screen time, I thought she was in it too much already) but I doubt you will see that many grand sweeping changes. There will just be some scenes added here and there, just like Fellowship had, it did make it better but it didn't affect or change the storyline at all.

 

[KenM]

There is a room that the extended two towers DVD will have an extra hour. One thing that they filmed and should have left in was a scene where Farimir finds Bromir's(sp?) broken horn wasing up on the shore, thats how he knows He is dead, but in the theactical version, they don't tell you how He knows he is dead.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Concerning Arwen

I wish to explain why I feel the inclusion of Arwen and the Host of Rivendell at Helm's Deep is so very important.

(Yes, I acknowledge that half of you out there are fed up with Arwen, and are greatly adverse to more of her. However, hear me out.)

Like it or not, the love relationship between Aragorn and Arwen is a major theme in The Two Towers.
It pre-determines the outcome of the Aragorn/Eowyn theme (and that one IS important and relevant!)
It is a major part of Peter Jackson's interpretation ... and the Aragorn/Arwen theme should be - if he insists on putting it in the film - as good, sensical, and fulfilling as possible, shouldn't it?
I mean, if Peter Jackson MUST put Arwen in the film, shouldn't her story be as satisfying, logical, and reasonable as can be made, as opposed to incomplete, illogical, or confusing?

Peter Jackson makes a very big issue out of Arwen's choice.
He goes so far as to devote a great deal of crucial film time to this (yes, I know that angers many folk!)
He shows us what actually did happen, in the Appendixes, after the story (the 3 books) ended.
Aragorn did die, and Arwen did mourn alone and in great emotional pain.
Arwen did wander alone in the barren woods, and ultimately laid herself down in Lothlorien and died (she choose to die, as was permitted her by the Gift of the One to mortals in Middle Earth. It was not suicide, but it was not a happy choice, either.)
All of this except Arwen's final choice and death were shown to us by Peter Jackson in The Two Towers.

Elrond bluntly laid out the future for Arwen, should the unlikely event (as Elrond saw it) occur that Sauron was defeated, and that Arwen achieved all she desired.
Not that Elrond, in the film, believed this was going to happen. It is implied rather succintly that Elrond thought Sauron was going to win. And why not, considering Frodo's slim chances of success?
Does Elrond not say, in the film, to Arwen: There is no hope, to imply Sauron is going to win?
Does Arwen not say: There is yet hope, back to her father?
Does Elrond not then lay the riot act on Arwen, leaving her in tears, showing her the future if Aragorn succeeds?

The point here is: Arwen is left with a HARD decision to make.
And since Peter Jackson put this theme solidly in his film, it would be nice to see Arwen make up her mind.
I know that Peter Jackson filmed just that. I know that Peter Jackson filmed Arwen going to Helm's Deep, but that these scenes were cut.
And I think it hurt the film deeply. Those scenes should be put back in.

If Arwen choose to stand with Aragorn, this should be SHOWN. (Now, and not later in ROTK, which has enough to deal with besides Arwen's story.)
Arwen, choosing to go to Helm's Deep to stand with Aragorn, is most CERTAINLY making a choice. She is choosing Aragorn. She is choosing Aragorn, and choosing to face her own death in that choosing, for going to Helm's Deep is suicide!
If she is so loyal to Aragorn she will put aside her Gift from the One, and accept immortality, let us see this.
If she is so loyal to Aragorn that she will face death at the hands of the Uruk-Hai to be with him, to die at his side if death is his fate at Helm's Deep, then let it be shown!
And if she is so loyal to Aragorn as to actually fight at his side, in the battle, let us see this!

For one thing Arwen absolutely was not, was a warrior princess!!!
Arwen would have HATED war, HATED killing, and shuddered at the necessity of such madness. Certainly, Aragorn did, and it shows in the film. (A contrast to Eomer, Eowyn, and Theoden, who think war is about glory and fulfillment. What a crock! But hey, that is their attitude, Tolkien portrayed them as such, and that is how it is.)
Arwen would not have looked forward to battle, much less the battle of Helm's Deep! Even with Peter Jackson's slightly altered portrayal, this elven lady would have all but puked at the thought of sending children into battle, at the carnage and screams of the dying, at the whole ghastly insane scene.
But ...
Arwen WOULD have gone, if Aragorn faced his death there.
Arwen would have gone, to be with the one she loved, in his darkest (up to that point) hour.

Arwen would have gone, fought in the battle, and faced all the Uruk-Hai, for a very legitimate and very reasonable ... and very feminine ... reason.
Arwen would have done it for love.

(look of exasperation)

And she did. At least, in Peter Jackson's original concept, that is how it turned out.
Unfortunately, time constraints and fan pressure cut out the scenes, and in so doing took away the strongest part of the entire Aragorn/Arwen story.
For this is about SHOWING, not telling. That is how Peter Jackson works.
In no way I can think of could Arwen have shown her love more than to have faced death at the side of the one she loved. And this should have been shown, and not cut out!

What is the point of wasting a great deal of film time showing us a love story, if the most powerful part of that story is cut?
We do not even know WHAT Arwen decided, in the theatrical version of TTT! We were never shown where she went, or what decision she made.
We were entitled to know. Blast it, Arwen made a statement in going to Helm's Deep: that she loved Aragorn, and would stand with him through all of it. And that is something I wanted to see.

Her personal military contribution is next to nil, in such a great battle (except to scare the crap out of Aragorn, who now must deal with the possible death of his lady.)
Arwen may be a great warrior, but in a battle like this, teamwork and war tactics count the more, and personal heroism less (yeah, I know that in the Battle of Gondor this is not the case. But in the case of Helm's Deep, I think the generality above is applicable.)

In other words, no warrior princess (ala Xena) went to Helm's Deep to prove what a great killer she was, or how manly she was, or how much of a difference her battle prowess could make, or any such nonsense (Tolkien would faint at the idea, and I would faint at such a corruption of Tolkien.)
But Arwen went for love.
Love is reasonable. It is a legitimate reason for her to go. It is not logical, but love is not logical in itself. Nor does it have to pretend to be logical.
Love is a legitimate reason for Arwen to go to Helm's Deep, and to fight at Helm's Deep.

So, there is a legitimate reason for Peter Jackson to give us back all those cut scenes.
He started the love story. He should continue it, and if he had a strong point to make (Arwen going to Helm's Deep is a strong point), then it should be made.

I hope I made myself clear.
It's only opinion, of course, and (frustrated look) I am sure Peter Jackson will never put the cut scenes back in, but nevertheless that is how I think.
That is why I think so much of the omission of Arwen at Helm's Deep, and why I think it hurt the film so badly to omit her role there.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

About Gandalf's return

Posted

You want more scene regarding Gandalf's "resurrection"?

Comment

I do not know. Honestly, it's a difficult subject.

Posted

BTW, AFAIC, Sauron the "bad maia" is like Lucifer who has fallen from grace. Don't think he's gonna deserve a resurrection from the One God, since he switched team.

Comment

Yes, Sauron is a rebel Maia who has Fallen.
Yes, Gandalf is a loyal Maia working for the Valar, and thus the One.
However ...

If you start handing out free resurrections, simply because you can, and because your team player got knocked out of the ring, a terrible dislogic is created.

If my team player gets free resurrections, and yours does not, how can your side possibly win? I'm the One, and I hold all the cards. You are only Sauron the Rebel!
In which case there is no need for Frodo or anyone else. I the One can simply keep resurrecting my maia until you crumble. I can go on resurrecting my side infinitely, as needed, until you go down. And why not?
Of course, this thinking not only makes for a lousy film, but also for an angry Tolkien (who just might rise from the grave himself over such a perversion of his story.) Not to mention a film audience bored to tears.

Gandalf, as far as I know, was the only case of the One resurrecting a maia.
There is not one other case in the history of Middle Earth I can point to. Not one, in a history where situations every bit as dire as the one in LOTR were commonplace.
The One didn't help the Valar or maia when Melkor threw down their lamps, and destroying fire was poured all over Arda.
The One didn't help the Valar or maia when Melkor and Ungoliant slew the Two Trees.
The One didn't help the Valar and maia when they attacked Melkor the first time, or the second time.
The One didn't help Melian the maia when Thingol was killed and Doriath destroyed.

The One is not a military player, and does not think in military terms (much less in team terms.)
The One is - quite literally - beyond thought, as mortals or Vala think. All their capacity for thought sprang from the One, but the One is not limited to their thinking capacity!
The One DOES seem to act, in ways that often make no logical sense, to certain deeds, even if those deeds are the deeds of mere mortals.
Deeds such as a certain Mr. Frodo taking pity on a wretched ruin of a hobbit, instead of killing him when just about anyone and everyone else would have done so (nevermind Sam's mercy, later on, on the slopes of Mount Doom, and the effort THAT took.)

If Gandalf was resurrected, by the One, it was not because the One wanted a military victory, and thought in terms of my team player versus yours.
I know that Tolkien explains the resurrection of Gandalf in his Letters. I do not remember what he said, but I do remember Tolkien went quite deep into religious philosophy concerning the matter.
Can this be translated to film? Should it be? That is a matter for Peter Jackson to decide. I think Tolkien would have said yes to that question, but that is only a guess.

But to leave the audience thinking the One would just resurrect his side until Sauron collapsed, in a military confrontation ... well, did Peter Jackson leave us thinking that? I cannot answer that, but the rest of you out there can.
I honestly think Tolkien's thinking should be made clear here, or at least the effort to clarify Tolkien should be made. This is too important a matter to gloss over. (For heaven's sake, if the One could just throw maia at Sauron until he fell, and resurrect them as needed, who needs a story about Frodo, or the Ring, or anything???!)

 

[Bob Aberton]

I think you're making mountains out of molehills, Edena, aside from being rather too melodramatic about it, but that's beside the point...

Concering Gandalf & his resurrection:

Gandalf seems, at least to me, to have been intended as something of a Jesus-figure in Tolkien's mind.

Well, after all, why did God resurrect Jesus? Wouldn't that have given Jesus an unfair advantage over the Devil?

(Mods, sorry about the religious reference; it was the best argument I could think of, seeing as how, as I mentioned above, there are obvious parallels between Gandalf and Jesus...)

See my point? Gandalf was destined for this...In a sense, this was what his whole life on Middle-Earth was leading up to: his death, resurrection, and Transfiguration.

Now, he may not have been the obvious savior, per se, of Middle-Earth, but one can argue that all the events leading up to the destruction of the Ring happened because of him: Bilbo setting out on his Quest, and therefore finding the Ring. Bilbo was persuaded, by him, to give the Ring to Frodo. Gandalf guided Frodo on the way, and gave him the inner strength he needed to complete his quest. Gandalf even, with his words, eventually kept Frodo from harming Gollum, thus ensuring that the Ring would be destroyed.

Furthermore, Gandalf was sent into Middle-Earth, along with the rest of the Istari (who could be considered prophets of a sort, ala John the Baptist or similar figures...), when the Elves had strayed from the path, so to speak, and used Sauron's tainted knowledge to forge the rings.

Just as, one could say, Jesus was sent into the world, along with John the Baptist, when the Hebrews had strayted from the path, so to speak, and had fallen from the true worship of God, etc, etc, I'll assume you know the story.

So y'see? The reason for Gandalf's resurrection is the completion of the analogy - the analogy of Gandalf = Jesus.

Now, that is rather a clunky thing to have to explain in the film, you'd have to devote a whole chunk of time to delving into Tolkien's religious philosophy. Undoubtedly, taking the time away from the rest of the film in order to make obvious a minor bit of philosophy which, frankly, very few people care about, would have hurt the storyline much more.

It actually works better for Gandalf just to say "I came back because my task was not yet finished." This way, people who don't care (ie most of the audience) can say to themselves, "Oh, I get it; he can't die until his task, which is probably defeating Sauron or some such, is done. Sure, that works. Back to enjoying the film."

Whereas, the people who really want to think into it can say to themselves, "Well, then why doesn't Sauron get resurrected. Probably because his task is to test the races of Men, Elves and Dwarves, punish them for their sins, etc. Well, once he's dead, his task is done - the Elves have done their penance by being oppressed by Sauron, they go back to the Undying Lands. The Men, they passed the test [ie, being oppressed by Sauron], so they get to have dominion over Middle-Earth, and Sauron's time is over, so he doesn't get a free resurrection."

Whew, what a lot of wasted energy. Much easier just to annoy the film and not stress over the "nits."

As to the Arwen thing, it's called a cliffhanger. Get used to it.

Besides, if you noticed the suspicious look Elrond gave Arwen as she left Rivendell, then the film implies, fairly strongly, what Arwen's choice will be.

(To others who wish to pick apart my argument: Please do not flame do to mention of religion. I have no wish to see this thread shut down...)

 

[Mistwell]

I think this "show us Arwen returning to Aragorn" debate is premature - it seems likely that has been moved to the third movie. I think she is going to show up in Godor in this version, not Helms Deep, and that will give you the completion you are looking for.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Can we have this discussion without words to describe my posting (melodramatic, and such words as that) being bandied about?
You do not hear me making such comments about your posts.
Thank you.

Now ...

Mistwell, I think you may well be right.
If so, I hope Peter Jackson can convey Arwen's decision in the dramatic fashion that her arrival in Helm's Deep could have been (as I have said before, an opportunity lost, in my opinion.)
ROTK does, however, have very great time constraints. There is so much that needs to be said, and so little time in which to say it. I just hope for the best.

Bob, I agree that an extensive discussion of Tolkien's religious philosophy, in the film, would have been time consuming, and time was something Peter Jackson did not have.
I am neutral on the issue, as a matter of fact, as to whether any further treatment (beyond what was in the film) was needed ... I merely wonder if such is the case.
If the Arwen theme is left by Peter Jackson as a cliffhanger, that is alright. I can see how it could have been a cliffhanger - I can see how Peter Jackson might have intended it that way. Your point is well taken.
I do think, however, that Peter Jackson could have made a STRONG resolution of Arwen's theme in TTT, and should have done so. My opinion.
For in ROTK, there are just so many other things to be resolved, and new things (like Denethor) to be introduced and resolved, and so little time to do it all in.