any lord of the rings fans?

[Flying Crane]

So now I have another question... does anyone have a clue about why Jackson changed Faramir's character so fundamentally in the movie? In the novel, the episode in Ithilien is a kind of respite, a reflective time of great beauty in the context of Tolkien's narrative. In the movie it becomes a time of horrific danger for the Quest, a point where it seems almost certain to fail. Is this just Jackson's piling-up-of-peril's approach to the direction of the epic, or there something else involved that I'm missing? Any thoughts? (Like Michael, I'm very fond of Tolkien's Faramir... Faramir in the movie seems to act in a manner I don't find fully consistent, at least in the Ithilien episode).

Yeah, this was one of the places where I think Jackson should have stayed truer to the book.

Loved the movies, I still tend to pop them in the DVD player and let them run in the background while I am puttering around the home and doing chores and stuff. I think that given what Jackson was trying to accomplish, he did a remarkable job and it was truly a monumental task. That being said, there are definitely parts that I think should have been done differently. Just my thoughts as a Tolkien die-hard.

 

[exile]

Yeah, this was one of the places where I think Jackson should have stayed truer to the book.

Loved the movies, I still tend to pop them in the DVD player and let them run in the background while I am puttering around the home and doing chores and stuff. I think that given what Jackson was trying to accomplish, he did a remarkable job and it was truly a monumental task. That being said, there are definitely parts that I think should have been done differently. Just my thoughts as a Tolkien die-hard.

I'll watch LoTR at any time, almost regardless of what I'm doing (or have to do). A somewhat flawed masterpiece---the heroic genre doesn't get any better. And some of the movie realizations of the themes and characters in the book are really excellent... and I think JRRT himself would have loved the cinematography.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

The thing is..there was absolutely NO reason to change the character of Farimir. That was one of my biggest peeves with the film. The other being the parting of Sam and Frodo just before entering Shelobs lair. I have issues with film-makers "improving" on a masterpiece.

 

[Flying Crane]

The thing is..there was absolutely NO reason to change the character of Farimir. That was one of my biggest peeves with the film. The other being the parting of Sam and Frodo just before entering Shelobs lair. I have issues with film-makers "improving" on a masterpiece.

Yeah, I gotta agree with this completely. I wish these had not been tampered with.

 

[Flying Crane]

Another thing that the film failed to show was the length of time between when Bilbo left the Shire, and Frodo & Co. began their journey. Frodo was 33 years old when Bilbo left the Shire and Frodo inherited Bag End and the Ring. Frodo stayed on in Bag End for 17 years. During that time, the Ring kept him from aging, but he started out as a 33 year-old, and was 50 when he began his journey. In the meantime, Gandalf was off doing research trying to figure things out, and would occasionally stop by, but he would be gone for years at a time.

The movie made it seem like Frodo left perhaps a few weeks after Bilbo, at most. Gandalf made a quick trip down to Gondor and then returned and Frodo and Sam took off. It just jumps over this vast stretch of time where life in the Shire is essentially normal for Frodo.

Merry and Pippin, and perhaps Sam as well would have only been children during Bilbo's birthday celebration. They were quite a bit younger than Frodo tho I think Sam was a bit older than the other two, and by the time Frodo need to flee the Shire, they were just old enough to be adults and accompany him.

 

[exile]

The thing is..there was absolutely NO reason to change the character of Farimir. That was one of my biggest peeves with the film. The other being the parting of Sam and Frodo just before entering Shelobs lair. I have issues with film-makers "improving" on a masterpiece.

Yeah, I gotta agree with this completely. I wish these had not been tampered with.

I think we're all on the same page about these points. It makes me kind of wonder what Jackson was thinking in making all these unnecessary changes... there really was no need to ramp up the conflict level in the way he seems to have been doing via these modifications. There was plenty enough menace in the narrative line of the book itself.

The case of Faramir is particularly unfortunate, IMHO, because it seems to me that JRRT was implicitly using the contrast between him and his brother Faramir to emphasize that point about how the desire for power leads to self-destruction. Boromir becomes obsessive about the Ring and dies pretty much directly as a result of his obsession; Faramir forebears from taking the Ring, passes through grave danger as a result (the suicidal effort to retake Osgiliath from the Orcs in response to his father's anger at his failure to obtain the Ring when he could have), but ultimately survives and subsequently comes into the happiest time of his life. What the movie does is make Faramir mirror Boromir's desire for the Ring (more to prove himself than because of the Ring's attraction, but that's irrelevant) until the scene with the Fell Beast, where Frodo is on the verge of putting the Ring on and betraying its presence to the Nazgul till Sam intervenes. And in the face of this clear danger sign about Frodo coming into contact with agents of Mordor and what could happen, what does Faramir do? He tells Frodo that they `now understand' each other and lets him go! I don't get it... someone seems to have either misunderstood the book, or misunderstood the mixup implied in the movie script. In any case, it was I think a major gaffe in the production... maybe the major gaffe.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

The thing is..there was absolutely NO reason to change the character of Farimir. That was one of my biggest peeves with the film. The other being the parting of Sam and Frodo just before entering Shelobs lair. I have issues with film-makers "improving" on a masterpiece.

I would have to agree on this as well!

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I think we're all on the same page about these points. It makes me kind of wonder what Jackson was thinking in making all these unnecessary changes... there really was no need to ramp up the conflict level in the way he seems to have been doing via these modifications. There was plenty enough menace in the narrative line of the book itself.

The case of Faramir is particularly unfortunate, IMHO, because it seems to me that JRRT was implicitly using the contrast between him and his brother Faramir to emphasize that point about how the desire for power leads to self-destruction. Boromir becomes obsessive about the Ring and dies pretty much directly as a result of his obsession; Faramir forebears from taking the Ring, passes through grave danger as a result (the suicidal effort to retake Osgiliath from the Orcs in response to his father's anger at his failure to obtain the Ring when he could have), but ultimately survives and subsequently comes into the happiest time of his life. What the movie does is make Faramir mirror Boromir's desire for the Ring (more to prove himself than because of the Ring's attraction, but that's irrelevant) until the scene with the Fell Beast, where Frodo is on the verge of putting the Ring on and betraying its presence to the Nazgul till Sam intervenes. And in the face of this clear danger sign about Frodo coming into contact with agents of Mordor and what could happen, what does Faramir do? He tells Frodo that they `now understand' each other and lets him go! I don't get it... someone seems to have either misunderstood the book, or misunderstood the mixup implied in the movie script. In any case, it was I think a major gaffe in the production... maybe the major gaffe.

Yes it is hard not to agree with your post and about Faramir. What really dissapointed me with the movies was not seeing Saurman and wormtongue in the Shire at the end. Now I know that it apparently was on the special edition set. Unfortunately for me I bought each movie DVD as they came out and have not seen it yet. However, it would have been great to have it actually in the movie.

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes it is hard not to agree with your post and about Faramir. What really dissapointed me with the movies was not seeing Saurman and wormtongue in the Shire at the end. Now I know that it apparently was on the special edition set. Unfortunately for me I bought each movie DVD as they came out and have not seen it yet. However, it would have been great to have it actually in the movie.

It is not in the special edition set. It was completely ignored in the movie.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

It is not in the special edition set. It was completely ignored in the movie.

That is to bad that it was not in the special edition set. I thought someone had mentioned that it was. That bums me out. It really should have been in the movie. It was a dramatic and important part of the Lord of The Rings in my opinion.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

I read them first in jr. high, and every few years I just have to read them all over again.

My fave was always Boromir. Of the non-hobbit members of the fellowship, he always seemed the most "human" to me.

Jeff

 

[Flying Crane]

That is to bad that it was not in the special edition set. I thought someone had mentioned that it was. That bums me out. It really should have been in the movie. It was a dramatic and important part of the Lord of The Rings in my opinion.

I had heard the rumor as well, but it aint so. I also agree, it should have been in there, but I expect it would have lengthened the movie by another 20 - 40 minutes. For those of us die-hards, that would have been great, but I think the general public's patience was already tested by the length. For those reasons, I can understand why it was cut, but I agree, I would have liked to see it stay.

I sort of wish there would be another version released on DVD, where some of these deleted parts would be worked in. The old forest, Bombadil, the barrow weights, the scouring of the Shire, etc. Each movie could be another hour or so, only for the die-hards. Each of the three movies would have been about 4 hours or more. I can't imagine that would ever happen, tho. What an epic, entertainment for the entire weekend!

 

[Flying Crane]

I read them first in jr. high, and every few years I just have to read them all over again.

My fave was always Boromir. Of the non-hobbit members of the fellowship, he always seemed the most "human" to me.

Jeff

That's actually a really funny thing you have said. Of all the members, only he and Aragorn were human!

 

[SFC JeffJ]

That's actually a really funny thing you have said. Of all the members, only he and Aragorn were human!

I realized that as soon as I posted it. What I should have said was he seemed more realized since he was about the only flawed character at that point in the story. And Sean Bean did a great job playing him!

Jeff

 

[exile]

I had heard the rumor as well, but it aint so. I also agree, it should have been in there, but I expect it would have lengthened the movie by another 20 - 40 minutes. For those of us die-hards, that would have been great, but I think the general public's patience was already tested by the length. For those reasons, I can understand why it was cut, but I agree, I would have liked to see it stay.

I sort of wish there would be another version released on DVD, where some of these deleted parts would be worked in. The old forest, Bombadil, the barrow weights, the scouring of the Shire, etc. Each movie could be another hour or so, only for the die-hards. Each of the three movies would have been about 4 hours or more. I can't imagine that would ever happen, tho. What an epic, entertainment for the entire weekend!

Hey guys---this is the story on Grima and Saruman---I have the special ultra edition, whatever. The deal is, the scene with Grima stabbing Saruman after the latter in effect pisses on him in response to his obvious desire to quit the Dark Side does take place in the special ultra whatever---but not in the Shire!!! It happens at the top of Orthac, and Saruman, after getting his throat cut in a half-dozen places, pitches lazily off the top of the tower and lands on the spikes of the millwheel---a real catharsis for those of us who'e been hating him properly, but probably a touch that JRRT would have found distateful :wink1: Grima is killed by arrows, fired not from the Hobbits' bows but by Legolas'.

So there's closure there of sorts. But it definitely comes second best to the way it would have played out if they'd done the scene as per Tolkien. Only then, of course, as Michael notes, they'd have added probably close to half an hour to an already Wagnerian movie... not that I'd have minded one bit!

 

[Flying Crane]

I realized that as soon as I posted it. What I should have said was he seemed more realized since he was about the only flawed character at that point in the story. And Sean Bean did a great job playing him!

Jeff

Agreed, Sean Bean was really good. My wife and I have actually discussed this very thing. He was excellent, a very talented actor. I was not at all familiar with him before these movies were made.

 

[Kacey]

I didn't have time to read through this whole thread, so I'm sorry if any of this is a repetition - it's huge, and just since yesterday - but I grew up on LotR - my father is an English professor, and his specialities are Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Tolkien. Now, Shakespeare and Chaucer I can take, but LotR has always had a special place in my affection, and I reread it periodically; so much so that the original copies I bought in middle school over 25 years fell apart and had to be replaced.

My favoritie character is probably Frodo, although Sam is a close second, and might be first, depending on the day.

As far as the movies go, I expected Bombadil to be left out, for reasons already discussed. The only change that I really objected to was the reasons why Pippin and Merry came along in the first place. In the novel, they came because they knew that Frodo was going, and their personal loyalty required them to come along - he tried to leave without them, and they wouldn't let him. In the movies, they are basically chance met on the road and come along because it's better than staying where they are. This is, in my opinion, a very significant difference, and affects the interpretations of their characters throughout the movies. Other than that, I understand why various things were left out, changed somewhat (like the gift-giving in LothLorien), etc. - but that one thing really bothers me.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Agreed, Sean Bean was really good. My wife and I have actually discussed this very thing. He was excellent, a very talented actor. I was not at all familiar with him before these movies were made.

Wow, he's been in a lot of stuff! Just google his name and bunches of different movies will come up. He's been one of my favorite actors for years.

Jeff

 

[stickarts]

So now I have another question... does anyone have a clue about why Jackson changed Faramir's character so fundamentally in the movie? In the novel, the episode in Ithilien is a kind of respite, a reflective time of great beauty in the context of Tolkien's narrative. In the movie it becomes a time of horrific danger for the Quest, a point where it seems almost certain to fail. Is this just Jackson's piling-up-of-peril's approach to the direction of the epic, or there something else involved that I'm missing? Any thoughts? (Like Michael, I'm very fond of Tolkien's Faramir... Faramir in the movie seems to act in a manner I don't find fully consistent, at least in the Ithilien episode).

I read an interview with one of the writers and they said that for the ring to be some ultimate evil thing that couldn't be resisted, it didn't make sense to then have Faramir come along and easily resist it. They wanted to emphasize how evil the ring was.

I agree that I would have liked to see Faramir remain as he was in the books.

 

[exile]

I read an interview with one of the writers and they said that for the ring to be some ultimate evil thing that couldn't be resisted, it didn't make sense to then have Faramir come along and easily resist it. They wanted to emphasize how evil the ring was.

I agree that I would have liked to see Faramir remain as he was in the books.

That would also motivate eliminating the Bombadil episode. I guess it makes sense, but I'd rather the book had been followed... like everyone else!

BTW---did you guys see my post around 6:27 tonight about Grima/Saruman killing thing transposed from the Shire in the book to Orthanc in the super-ultra-megascreen version of the movie?