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

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Kinetic_Blue

Faramir kidnapping the Hobbits?

In the book, Faramir is right up there with Aragorn, but in the movie, he's just a big puss. That probably bothers me more than most of the other changes.

[kemcha]

So, how much did you guys pay for your Lord of the Rings sets?

[radagast]

Originally Posted by happydood

See, I don't know that there are any DRASTIC changes to characters in the films. You can argue Arwen I suppose, or the Elves showing up at Helm's Deep, but these are really speculative-type filling in blanks where there wasn't specifics to begin with.

And of course, the much-maligned (in this thread anyway) showdown between Gandalf and the Witch-King, but in all these cases I thought the alterations fit the story that was being told and they were all still more or less faithful to the tone of the book.

Tom Bombadil is sorely missed, but I agree that he would have felt like a diversion in the streamlined version of the story they set out to tell.

As Grand Bob has pointed out, there are substantial changes to some of the character's personalities in relation to the book. Faramir and Denethor, for example. There are others.

[P@t_Mtl]

Been reading the book every year since I was 8 years old and I am now 43. I can say that there are so major differences in characters behaviors from the book to the movies and alteration in certain aspect of how the story goes along.

That being said, I don't have major problems with it. The book is the book and the movie is the movie for me and are two different things.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by happydood

Agreed, but for the films, I think I prefer Gandalf being afraid of him as it serves for higher stakes in the dramatic tension. The pay off with Eowyn is much greater as a result to me. Again. FOR THE FILMS.

For me the "payoff" with Eowyn (and Merry) was ridiculous if Gandalf couldn't deal with the WK. Gandalf the White is weaker than a Rohan woman and a hobbit. And even though Gandalf the White drove away several Ringwraiths, when saving Faramir (it was in the movie) he couldn't deal with one of them later. And even though he kicked the backside of a BALROG, he couldn't deal with the WK. Simply silly.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Kinetic_Blue

Faramir kidnapping the Hobbits?

Not only that, but Faramir and his men were cruel and abusive to Gollum. That left a bad taste in my mind.

Originally Posted by frogmort

I think even the most ardent old school book worm guys love the movies, especially the extended versions, but that doesn't mean we mindlessly except everything from PJ & CO.

+1

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by radagast

Not only that, but Faramir and his men were cruel and abusive to Gollum.

Taken as a whole, the movies are very good. The locations and cinematography were in every case almost perfect; this is in large part due to Jackson's hiring notable Tolkien enthusiasts such as Alan Lee to work on the project. The pacing was also superior, especially for a book with separate threads and jumps in time that has often been described as "unfilmable". The energy and passion of the production crew is evident in practically every frame.

I still can't think any actor that would have been superior to Ian McKellen as Gandalf, Christopher Lee as Saruman, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, Andy Serkis as Gollum, Brad Dourif as Wormtongue, Sean Astin as Sam, Miranda Otto as Eowyn, Karl Urban as Eomer, or Bernard Hill as Theoden. Also, the dialog was excellent for these actors. Then you have Viggo, Elijah Wood, John Rhys Davies, Sean Bean and others who were more than adequate to handle their roles but assigned "good-but-less-than-stellar scripts".

Then, we get to the "questionable roles". Without getting into too much detail (e.g. John Noble - a great actor, but was Denethor actually a raving lunatic?), I will just say that I feel bad for David Wenham. He is an excellent actor, and I think he did all he could for the role assigned to him; unfortunately, the screenwriters assassinated Faramir's character - which was extremely important to the story. He and his men, of course, were Tolkien's portrayal of ideal "good men", and along with Aragorn's Rangers the last of the incorruptible Numenoreans. In effect, they took the best that Middle-earth had to offer and completely turned it around. The equivalent action in the world of Disney would be to turn Cinderella into her evil step-mother. How Jackson, and especially Boyens, a self-proclaimed read-the-book-every-year-fan, missed the boat on this one is beyond my reasoning. Of all the scenes added in the EE's, I find the scenes of Faramir's men beating Gollum the most objectionable. "The devil's in the details" as the saying goes, and details such as this prevent these very good movies from becoming great movies.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by Kinetic_Blue

Faramir kidnapping the Hobbits?

Fair point. I wasn't thinking about Faramir. Nor am I trying to convince anybody I'm right about a matter of taste. Nor am I accepting the changes blindly. I just don't see it as a matter of acceptance or rejection of smaller details when I like the overall package that is the films. When I watch them I don't think to myself, I really wish they'd made Faramir truer to the book, I just go with it.

But I will say, not that anybody needs an explanation from me, that in a streamlined version of the tale where you don't have the time to elucidate a character's motivations, making Faramir subject to the ring's evil makes sense. Otherwise, the argument becomes, "Well, why don't they just give it to him to get rid of?" since in the book he clearly attests he would never use this thing.

[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.

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Taken as a whole, the movies are very good. The locations and cinematography were in every case almost perfect; this is in large part due to Jackson's hiring notable Tolkien enthusiasts such as Alan Lee to work on the project. The pacing was also superior, especially for a book with separate threads and jumps in time that has often been described as "unfilmable". The energy and passion of the production crew is evident in practically every frame.

~snip~
.

Misty Mountains were not misty...

[Gold Ranger]

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.

But it NEVER corrupted Samwise!

[NYorker]

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.

Excellent. I knew this was explained somewhere, wasn't sure where. I thought Faramir in the movies had much more "personality" than the books.

Again, when translating a book to film, there are many consideration, so it's almost never the same as the book, especially one with the scope of LOTR.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by NYorker

Excellent. I knew this was explained somewhere, wasn't sure where. I thought Faramir in the movies had much more "personality" than the books.

I haven't read any of the books at length, so the films are my main source of comparison.

Again, when translating a book to film, there are many considerations, so it's almost never the same as the book...

Yep, that's usually the way it goes. I've tried explaining this to my uncle numerous times, but he's a purist. I once asked him if he would actually believe seeing the X-Men in skintight yellow suits, and he seriously answered, "Yes!" If its not exctly like the books he grew up with, he'll find something to complain about. Interestingly, the one film he had no problems with was 1994's "The Flintstones"; go figure.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Kinetic_Blue

But it NEVER corrupted Samwise!

Exactly.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Kinetic_Blue

But it NEVER corrupted Samwise!

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.

[HelmutNewton]

Originally Posted by kemcha

So, how much did you guys pay for your Lord of the Rings sets?

$42.69 shipped. It was $49.99 at WBShop.com, plus a 20% birthday discount.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by kemcha

So, how much did you guys pay for your Lord of the Rings sets?

$44 on Amazon.ca

[Rambaldi47]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Galadriel never had it in her possession, either, but she went psycho when Frodo offered it to her.

I love that scene. It's like "ok let's all just calm the F down."

[Grand Bob]

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.

We should keep in mind that the Ring is the physical representation of Evil - which in the story is the equivalent of Power - that is, the complete domination of others to one's will without empathy. All of these characters - Gandalf, Frodo, Galadriel, Aragorn, Elrond, Gollum, Denethor, Saruman, Boromir, and even Sam - were tempted by the Ring. Saruman, Gollum, Denethor, and Boromir failed because their personalities would not permit them to yield to the temptation of power. Others (Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Aragorn, and Faramir) were saved by virtue of intelligence and good nature. Sam was saved by his inherent good nature and "plain hobbit-sense", as it is called in the book. Although good, Frodo failed because the physical and mental toll taken upon him due to the quest had left him unable to resist at the end. Therefore, he was saved (for lack of a better phrase) by divine providence.
The point of the story and moral significance of the Ring being presented to each of these major characters can easily be extended to the modern "real" world; heads of organizations, politicians, and ultimately to we as the viewers (readers), as Tolkien often alluded to in his personal writings. The resulting question is, "What would you do when offered the temptation of Power?"

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

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.

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

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.

So Bilbo could surrender the Ring, Sam could surrender the Ring, Gandalf could refuse the Ring, and Galadriel could refuse the Ring, and even Aragorn could refuse the Ring, and all of that is okay, but if Faramir refused the Ring, then it would have stripped it of it's power.

Don't get me wrong, I love the movies, and I realize that they can coexist with the books. The books are still the books, and always will be, and the movie is like an alternate reality to the books, which is fine, but I just don't buy that Faramir had to be portayed that way, or the story would've collapsed in on it's self. I think that they just changed it because they wanted to, and also to ratchet up the tension, which is what a lot of their changes seem to be intended to do.