Replies

What is missing from both NZ Striders analysis and the movie version of Faramir is his honesty, kindness, and integrity.

exactly

I understand this is Peter Jackson's movie.

true

It's just that he did such a good job on Fellowship of the Ring, that I have a hard time comprehending why he made so many of these unnecessary changes to the Two Towers. The change to Faramir is the one I have the most trouble understanding.

And I think people around here are a bit miffed that my explaination of the changes is that Jackson's ideology seeped into the story...

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.