Replies

At one point, Faramir says, "Look, I wouldn't even touch the ring if I saw it lying on the side of the road."

For us, as filmmakers, that sort of thing creates a bit of a problem because we've spent a lot of time in the last film and in this one to establish this ring as incredibly powerful. Then to suddenly come to a character that says, "Oh, I'm not interested in that," to suddenly go against everything that we've established ourselves is sort of going against our own rules.

This is complete crap. This guy is trying to tell me that he wasn't aware of the entire story while making the first third of the movie. I don't believe this for one second. Peter Jackson is a loser, who had his chance and blew it. THAT IS TOTALLY (and, no doubt purposefully) ANTITHETICAL TO THE SPIRIT OF TOLKIEN'S FARAMIR!!!

This guy is trying to tell me that he wasn't aware of the entire story while making the first third of the movie.

You must have read a different interview than the one I posted. Jackson never said that he wasn't aware of the entire story while making these films. That would have been pretty hard since they shot all three at once.

Would you mind posting the quote where he says he wasn't aware of the entire story? Thanks.

Peter Jackson: ... Their journey had become more complicated by the fact that they are prisoners. Which they are in the book for a brief period of time. But then, very quickly in the book, Tolkien sort of backs away from there and, as you say, he reveals Faramir to be very pure. At one point, Faramir says, "Look, I wouldn't even touch the ring if I saw it lying on the side of the road."

For us, as filmmakers, that sort of thing creates a bit of a problem because we've spent a lot of time in the last film and in this one to establish this ring as incredibly powerful. Then to suddenly come to a character that says, "Oh, I'm not interested in that," to suddenly go against everything that we've established ourselves is sort of going against our own rules. We certainly acknowledge that Faramir should not do what Boromir did and that he ultimately has the strength to say, "No, you go on your way and I understand." We wanted to make it slightly harder, to have a little more tension than there was in the book. But that's where that sort of decision comes from.

Kay Eye, I don't doubt that Jackson wanted to put together a smashing LOTR film. But here we see that his depth of analysis of Faramir's character isn't as deep as the guy from NZ wants us to believe it is. Tolkien didn't suddenly back away from the Ring as Jackson describes. Faramir made a hard descision about the Ring that we didn't see in the film.

I don't know why Jackson can't be honest and say something like, "We wanted to please fans and general audiences alike with our treatment. We're sorry if some of the liberties we took with the characters come across as unfair. That wasn't our intent but we take responsibility for the hard decisions we made. We did our best." And just leave it at that.

Phillipa says, "Jackson always said the films won't be the books." Or that Jackson says Tolkien's depiction of Faramir "goes against the rules" that they put up in showing how seductive the Ring is. Or that Faramir "suddenly backs away" from the Ring. Or that the books didn't have enough tension.

C'mon. Gimme a break. If the books were as they describe, no one would read them and they wouldn't try to make a movie out of them. They can't be honest that they came up short in bringing the charcter of Faramir to life on the screen, so they blame the source material. That takes the cake.