[ Daily Tolkien / Lord Of The Rings ] The Nature of Faramir?

The One Ring.net ^ | December 22, 2002 | "NZ Strider"

[carton253]

If it makes you feel better...

[Waryone]

I share your disappointment, but I'm not sure that these changes are based on anything sinister. There are many in today's society who think all living things (trees) should be treated equally with man. Though I know that Tolkien, as a conservative Christian, would not be one of them. It is such a pervasive feeling in Hollywood that Peter Jackson probably would not even recognize that as being different from the belief in conservation that Tolkien expressed. But, since he made these movies, I have to assume that his ideology would come to the surface somewhere in them.

My theory is that when PJ originally went looking for backing to make Lord of the Rings, he had already done a great deal of work developing a two movie story. The first studio said make it one movie, so he left. He committed himself to the two movie format. By the time he went to New Line, everything was geared to making two movies. When New Line said why not three, I think it must have thrown him off guard. He had two solid movies developed, and was handed a Christmas present of a third movie. Instead of re-writing and re-working the two movies into a three movie treatment, he decided not to change the work done on original two movies and just carved The Two Towers out of them. That is why there is so much original material in Two Towers, and why it appears to some that even with the changes they have arrived at the same place. Even PJ says the next movie will be more like the book. Well, that's my theory anyway.

I'm not mad at Peter Jackson, just confused as to why he did this. It seems that even though he did a lot of study on the first and third book (according to him those movies are most like the books) so little of The Two Towers movie is the same. I feel it has more to do with not wanting to ruin all the good work he had done before being given the possibility of a third movie. Not just because he has some ax to grind or soapbox to stand on.

My fear is that my theory proves unsubstantiated and he actually has less of an understanding of the material than I at first believed. Lord of the Rings is a very substantial book. It is easy to have a superficial understanding of it and still enjoy the book. I'm sure the movies could also be presented at a superficial level and many people would still enjoy it. We will just have to see how much of the depth PJ sees and will choose to bring to the screen.

I'm grateful to Peter for the hard work he has already completed to bring LOTR to the screen, but I am not one to look uncritically at what he has done. I'm looking forward to seeing just how he handles these changes of his, and how well he is able to keep the third movie close to the third book. I just don't feel the need to see The Two Towers five times in the theater as I did FotR. Though I am looking forward to next November for release of the Extended Edition of TTT. Hopefully it will enlighten me as to his reasoning behind the changes.

I am willing to give Peter the benefit of the doubt but I'm not doing it blindly. Tolkien himself was very protective of his work. He was never very happy when publishers made their own changes to his work such as printing elfs for elves and other changes. But he is the only one who knew everything about middle earth. I can't presume to know what he would say about these changes, so I will give Peter a chance.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

if it makes you feel better...

oh, its a freakin' catharsis, let me tell you.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

It seems that even though he did a lot of study on the first and third book (according to him those movies are most like the books) so little of The Two Towers movie is the same

And the Two Towers is my favorite book. Oh well. I appreciate your analysis. Its just that none of the explainations for the miriad changes are satisfactory to me. There are so many good things about the movies (acting, cinematography, scenery, special effects) that if he had been more true to some important storylines, Peter Jackson could have had his name on the greatest movie(s) off all time, at least in this viewer's opinion.

[carton253]

It must be... after reading all your posts, you seem to be running out of adjectives... Seems only those that being with "F"... LOL!

[carton253]

Well... I'm going to try that post again... It must be since after reading all your posts, you seem to be running out of adjectives. Seems like only those that begin with "F" are left... LOL!

Whew! Need to hit preview after making my changes.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

I see your point, although, to be fair, one of those was accidentally double posted.

Seriously, though. Someone has to do the dirty work. I mean if i couldn't enjoy it, why should anyone else? Misery loving company and all that.

On the other hand, it's sort of like that "you know you're a redneck" joke: You know you're a redneck when you have to climb a water tower to save your sister's good name.

[carton253]

And just when I wasn't going to like you on principle, (I liked the movie) you went and made me laugh out loud! That's it... we're posting buddies for life.

[carton253]

The reason I like the movie is because Jackson got my favorite character right. Believe it not... Smeagol is my favorite... and what I saw on screen was what I had pictured and imagined him to be... especially when he was fretting over the cooking of the conies... priceless!

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Concur on Smeagol. He was really well done, as was the interplay between he, Frodo, and Samwise. Have to pick one more nit here ... I keep meaning to look through the book and find Frodo putting his sword to Sam's neck. That seemed a bit excessive and out of character, but there I go again.

[BradyLS]

Seriously, though. Someone has to do the dirty work. I mean if i couldn't enjoy it, why should anyone else? Misery loving company and all that.

Criminy! What am I? Chopped liver??? :-D

[BradyLS]

Frodo putting his sword to Sam's neck.

Frodo doesn't put the freak on Sam until he learns that Sam has the Ring in Cirith Ungol.

[BradyLS]

That is, in the books, that's the first time.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

What am I? Chopped liver???

You are a mere rookie until people start accusing you of "vitriol" and "hatred." You have to use verbs like "pervert" and "savage" to describe the desecration (another good one, by the way) of characters whom you describe with goofy sentiments like "this hero, pure of heart, the hope of mankind."

Also, lots of SHOUTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mudboy Slim]

"War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the Men of Numenor; and I would have her loved for her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her present wisdom. Not feared, save as men may fear the dignity of a man, old and wise."
-- Faramir to Frodo, The Two Towers, J.R.R. Tolkien

Very good...and quite applicable in the weeks and months that lie ahead, IMHO.

FReegards...MUD

[Lil'freeper]

This article might be of some interest.

[LinnieBeth]

Thanks Lil freeper, I knew we had had a good discussion but didn't know how to find it.

Did you read this thread?

How DID you find it?

[Lil'freeper]

I remembered it. I printed it out last winter for use in an intra-office Faramir debate. It's rare that an article sticks with me for that length of time.

[LinnieBeth]

Thank you, again.

[MrConfettiMan]

FWIW, I share your disappointment of how Faramir was portrayed in The Two Towers. However, for me it didn't rise to the level of "vitriol" or "hatred." :-D

I thoroughly enjoyed both movies and can't wait for ROTK. Joe (MCM)