The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Extended Edition) (2001-2003)

[Saturius]

I too don't understand why the filmmakers felt the need to change the Faramir character. Is it really that big a deal if ONE character throughout the whole trilogy is able to resist the ring? We've had nearly a dozen major characters get tempted by it, so its corrupting power is clearly evident. I don't think one person unaffected by it takes away any of its power. When reading I certainly didn't think to myself "Well two characters resisted the ring (Tom and Faramir), I guess this ring isn't as awesome, powerful and tempting as it's supposed to be." Are there many who actually came away thinking something along those lines, or would think along those lines if it was presented in the films like the book? Plus there's already so many references about how greedy and weak men are. How they're seen as a lesser race in some of the Eldar's eyes, so it was nice of Tolkein to demonstrate the inherent nobility and strength of men through the Faramir character. That was the entire point of the character.

The filmmakers had a tough choice between overcompensating the ring's power, or keeping Faramir's character intact. I personally think they ultimately chose the wrong choice for no good reason at all.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Kinetic_Blue

Galadriel had her own Ring of Power, as did Gandalf.
Their powers combined (CAPTAIN PLANET!) ...sorry...
along with The One Ring would corrupt them. They would actually be worse than Sauron. If i understood the books correctly...
I never took it as him doing anything but worrying about Frodo...

Since when did Gandalf have a Ring of Power? The opening narration says that they were given to Elves, Dwarves, and Men; Gandalf's a Wizard.

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Since when did Gandalf have a Ring of Power? The opening narration says that they were given to Elves, Dwarves, and Men; Gandalf's a Wizard.

Gandalf had it in the books.
Also, in The Two Towers film, it is seen very briefly a few times...

[frogmort]

Gandalf had Narya, the Ring of Fire, given to him by Cirdan the Shipwright when Gandalf first arrived in Middle-earth.

"Take now this Ring," he said; "for thy labours and thy cares will be heavy, but in all it will support thee and defend thee from weariness. For this is the Ring of Fire, and herewith, maybe, thou shalt rekindle hearts to the valour of old in a world that grows chill"

The Three Rings

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Yes, it did. Sam clearly hesitated to return the Ring to Frodo, and his expression makes it clear that it wasn't just from worrying about his friend. Galadriel never had it in her possession, either, but she went psycho when Frodo offered it to her. Gandalf refused the Ring, knowing what it would do, and while Bilbo surrendered it on his own, he was clearly affected, too.

Being tempted and being corrupted are not the same thing by a longshot.

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

From what I heard, Faramir says this of the Ring in the book: "I would not pick it up, if it lay by the wayside". Almost every other character recognized the threat it would pose, while the younger son of the greedy Denethor just ignores it? That's quite a bit of an anti-climax, at least in my opinion.

I don't see the problem with that. The book contrasts the two brothers. Denethor has a disdain for Faramir because he is a "wizard's pupil".

The movie simply makes the two brothers too similar.

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

In one of the Appendices, the whole deal of Faramir's moral change was addressed in detail. Phillipa Boyens said that all of them (herself, Jackson, & Walsh) felt that keeping Faramir's role identical to the book would have stripped the One Ring of its power. They even added Sam's line in Osgiliath as a nod to the book: "By all rights, we shouldn't even be here, but we are." They seeming felt that the Ring had to be capable of corrupting everyone to an extent, regardless of intent. Such a notion isn't entirely against Tolkien either, since Frodo ultimately falls to its influence at Mount Doom. Also, my opinion is that this could have been one reason why Tom Bombadil was removed, since (for no apparent reason) the Ring did not affect him.

Considering all the trouble the ring had caused, it is simplistic Hollywood thinking to dumb down the story like that. As evil as the ring was, Tolkien made it clear that not only could the great refuse the temptation (Gandalf and Galadriel) but mortals could also choose the right path (Faramir), thus leaving no excuse for those who chose poorly. Frodo was given special grace because he bore the ring through so many trials and pain.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Thanks for the kind words, but I am no where in that league, just an interested fan.

Sorry Grand Bob but I have to agree with them.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Since when did Gandalf have a Ring of Power? The opening narration says that they were given to Elves, Dwarves, and Men; Gandalf's a Wizard.

Originally Posted by frogmort

Gandalf had Narya, the Ring of Fire, given to him by Cirdan the Shipwright when Gandalf first arrived in Middle-earth.

"Take now this Ring," he said; "for thy labours and thy cares will be heavy, but in all it will support thee and defend thee from weariness. For this is the Ring of Fire, and herewith, maybe, thou shalt rekindle hearts to the valour of old in a world that grows chill"

The Three Rings

Cirdan's ring was one of the Elvish rings.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

The movie certainly adds drama, but at what cost? As an example, take a line of dialogue common to both. The Ring is at last revealed to Faramir, and having Frodo and Sam cornered, he says: "A chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to show his quality."

In the original story, realizing that evil means lead to evil ends, Faramir ensures that Frodo and Sam know that they have nothing to fear, and in fact he offers them assistance. From The Two Towers:
'Sam hesitated for a moment, then bowing very low: 'Good night, Captain, my lord,' he said. 'You took the chance, sir.'
'Did I so?' said Faramir.
'Yes, sir, and showed your quality: the very highest'.
Faramir smiled. 'A pert servant, Master Samwise. But nay: the praise of the praiseworthy is above all rewards. Yet there was naught in this to praise. I had no lure or desire to do other than I have done.'

In the movie version, Faramir rather easily succumbs to the temptation of the Ring and the quote "... a chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to show his quality" now has exactlly the opposite meaning from the original story and is said in mockery of himself. He leads Frodo and Sam towards Minas Tirith, when they are attacked in Osgiliath. Apparently, Frodo has prematurely lost his will (and wits), because he offers the Ring to the Witch-king before Sam knocks him down to his senses. Faramir finally recants and informs him that now "we understand one another" while in another questionable scene we see Gollum looking "remorseful", even though he has been senselessly beaten by Faramir's men (with more to come). This remorsefulness doesn't last long, as a few minutes later he is visualizing Shelob killing Frodo and Sam.

Of course, to those who haven't read or don't particularly care about the original story, this is a moot point. But for those who have, is the movie more dramatic? Yes, and what is cooler than another battle and seeing the Witch-king on a flying monster. But... better?

For me, that line by Faramir about "showing his quality" isn't a mockery of himself. It is a clear assertation of his acknowledgement that he is now facing an incredibly risky decision. Does he take the ring of power and chance being corrupted by it as the legend says all do? Or does he lend what assistance he can in helping destroy it? I never saw it as anything other than him facing the true weight of this decision in the moment he states it while the temptation is strongest. Thus, the ultimate decision to take the more valouress path shows that the strength of men is, in fact, not as misguided as the elders believe it to be.

[FrellingFrakker]

I would just like to say that as a proud geek that loves both the Tolkien books and the Jackson movies I'm really enjoying these last few pages of posts. I'm not taking sides, I just enjoy the insightful debates

[Moviefan2k4]

Well, what I know of the books mainly comes from reading Wikipedia, and watching the Appendices, so that's my starting point.

[slimdude]

Comparing books to its movie adaptations, are always subjected to minor changes according to the producer's discretion, that ensues unlimited positive, and negative debates amongst fans of the author.

[TylerDurden]

I never got the impression that Faramir was seduced by the power of the ring nor that he wanted it for himself. I believe he is faced with this decision to bring the ring to Denethor and Gondor not for himself. So I do not believe he was corrupted by it. He is simply trying to do the will of his father and satisfy him. That is the characters main goal throughout the story.

[kemcha]

The one thing that you have to realize is that Hollywood almost never faithfully adapts printed media into a movie. While the Lord of the Rings trilogy is the ultimate trilogy, as far as Hollywood is concerned, Peter Jackson must have had to evolve or change certain aspects of the original novels.

Hollywood has a nasty habit of altering or changing the aspect of the novel to make it more interesting.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by radagast

Sorry Grand Bob but I have to agree with them.

Tolkien scholars frequent sites like TheOneRing.net. They frighten me.

Originally Posted by radagast

Cirdan's ring was one of the Elvish rings.

Right, and course, the act of Cirdan freely giving the Elven ring to Gandalf (after receiving it from Celebrimbor, who sacrificed himself to prevent Sauron from obtaining the Three) exemplifies the positive outcome of self-sacrifice. It would be hard to imagine something that one would be more reluctant to give up than an Elven ring. In this case the survival of the free races of Middle-earth was the motivational factor.

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

For me, that line by Faramir about "showing his quality" isn't a mockery of himself. It is a clear assertation of his acknowledgement that he is now facing an incredibly risky decision. Does he take the ring of power and chance being corrupted by it as the legend says all do? Or does he lend what assistance he can in helping destroy it? I never saw it as anything other than him facing the true weight of this decision in the moment he states it while the temptation is strongest. Thus, the ultimate decision to take the more valouress path shows that the strength of men is, in fact, not as misguided as the elders believe it to be.

Originally Posted by TylerDurden

I never got the impression that Faramir was seduced by the power of the ring nor that he wanted it for himself. I believe he is faced with this decision to bring the ring to Denethor and Gondor not for himself. So I do not believe he was corrupted by it. He is simply trying to do the will of his father and satisfy him. That is the characters main goal throughout the story.

I can appreciate to some degree the rationale that Boyens and Jackson used in their choice to deviate from the original story. As TylerDurden points out, the family-related motivation was an interesting angle, and certainly Faramir wanted to gain positive recognition from his father, Denethor. So from that point-of-view, it was not a completely unreasonable deviation, and it also allowed the screenwriters to showcase some original thinking into the plot. Of course, Faramir was Tolkien's example of one of the last moral Numenoreans and therefore the basis of his actions would always be "to do the right thing". If Jackson would have adopted that (original storyline) approach, I think he could have used the extra time spent on the (in my mind) purposeless foray into Osgiliath on more important, useful, or just "better" scenes. Some examples would be the EE scene of Aragorn at his mother's Gilraen's grave - a short but powerful scene, well done. Or, developing the Faramir/Eowyn relationship, the road to Isengard (and other ignored chapters), the Hall of Fire and similar scenes at Rivendell, Cerin Amroth in Lothlorien (my favorite location in the book), etc. I would have found such scenes to be far more interesting than the added (and unnecessary) spectacle of additional battle scenes (if a mumak smashing a horse is good, then three horses, or ten horses, or [state quantity] is better?). Could better or more meaningful scenes been used than an avalanche of skulls on the Paths of the Dead, or a hobbit falling down or crying for the umpteenth time? Probably.

[TylerDurden]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I can appreciate to some degree the rationale that Boyens and Jackson used in their choice to deviate from the original story. As TylerDurden points out, the family-related motivation was an interesting angle, and certainly Faramir wanted to gain positive recognition from his father, Denethor. So from that point-of-view, it was not a completely unreasonable deviation, and it also allowed the screenwriters to showcase some original thinking into the plot. Of course, Faramir was Tolkien's example of one of the last moral Numenoreans and therefore the basis of his actions would always be "to do the right thing". If Jackson would have adopted that (original storyline) approach, I think he could have used the extra time spent on the (in my mind) purposeless foray into Osgiliath on more important, useful, or just "better" scenes. Some examples would be the EE scene of Aragorn at his mother's Gilraen's grave - a short but powerful scene, well done. Or, developing the Faramir/Eowyn relationship, the road to Isengard (and other ignored chapters), the Hall of Fire and similar scenes at Rivendell, Cerin Amroth in Lothlorien (my favorite location in the book), etc. I would have found such scenes to be far more interesting than the added (and unnecessary) spectacle of additional battle scenes (if a mumak smashing a horse is good, then three horses, or ten horses, or [state quantity] is better?). Could better or more meaningful scenes been used than an avalanche of skulls on the Paths of the Dead, or a hobbit falling down or crying for the umpteenth time? Probably.

+1
This is why I never understood all the EE superior to TE version. Sure the EE are nice but really they added nothing of worth to the over all storyline. I remember back before they were released there was this huge anticipation that the scouring of the Shire might be included in the EE, but it never came. While I do love these films and the EE they really are not a superior product. In that they do not encapsulate the printed material or flesh out anything more than battle sequences and footnotes.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by TylerDurden

+1
This is why I never understood all the EE superior to TE version. Sure the EE are nice but really they added nothing of worth to the over all storyline. I remember back before they were released there was this huge anticipation that the scouring of the Shire might be included in the EE, but it never came. While I do love these films and the EE they really are not a superior product. In that they do not encapsulate the printed material or flesh out anything more than battle sequences and footnotes.

I'm pretty sure that Jackson stated that the EEs were "for lovers of the books". The problem is: Many times it amounted to little more than a passing knod to something in the book, like putting a chapter title in the dialogue. And by the time I was finished with ROTK I began to wonder if I misunderstood the phrase "for lovers of the books". Having a video of PJ setting fire to a book copy of the LOTR, or flipping the bird to the camera could also be said to be for "lovers of the books".

[mrr1]

I have never read the books, but I prefer the EE over the theatricals. I only own the EE Blu Rays.

My wife wasn't familiar with LOTR and has never seen the theatrical versions, and she absolutely loved the EE movies when i showed them to her for the first time this year.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by FrellingFrakker

I would just like to say that as a proud geek that loves both the Tolkien books and the Jackson movies I'm really enjoying these last few pages of posts. I'm not taking sides, I just enjoy the insightful debates

It has been an interesting and relatively civil back and forth for the last couple of days. I've got more enjoyment out of this thread the last few days than I have in quite a while.

Originally Posted by radagast

I'm pretty sure that Jackson stated that the EEs were "for lovers of the books". The problem is: Many times it amounted to little more than a passing knod to something in the book, like putting a chapter title in the dialogue. And by the time I was finished with ROTK I began to wonder if I misunderstood the phrase "for lovers of the books". Having a picture of PJ setting fire to a copy of LOTR or flipping the bird to the camera could also be said to be for "lovers of the books".

[kemcha]

Giving the way Peter Jackson's films were released as "Extended Editions", I'm expecting to see "The Hobbit" released as theatrical editions and then as Extended Editions. Because New Line and MGM are going to want to soak the home video releases for all they are worth.

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by frogmort

It has been an interesting and relatively civil back and forth for the last couple of days. I've got more enjoyment out of this thread the last few days than I have in quite a while.

Some threads are more mature...no, civil... yeah, civil than others...
i wonder why???